Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22010

Subject: "From the mind of Alexander Tyler" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Tue Aug-22-00 07:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"From the mind of Alexander Tyler"


  

          

I just happened to be reading some news bits and what not and I stumbled upon this quote. It is PERFECT for what I've been explaining to people this time, and now, I'd like to share it with you

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."

That was written by historian Alexander Tyler. Did he say this today? Nope. He wrote these words over 100 yrs ago. Was he talking about America? Nope. He was talking about the former Athenian Republic. You see, people back then didn't call America a democracy (because it isn't.) they called it a republic. This quote goes along with the ideals of democracy and welfare distribution through socialism.

Just thought I'd share it with the bed wetting liberals.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
representative democracy
Aug 23rd 2000
1
RE: From the mind of Alexander Tyler
Aug 23rd 2000
2
Sure...
Aug 24th 2000
3
      Understand/Don't Understand
Aug 24th 2000
4
      RE: Understand/Don't Understand
Aug 25th 2000
6
           once again
Aug 25th 2000
8
           RE: once again
Aug 27th 2000
12
                ladidadidadida
Aug 27th 2000
14
                     more Procter & Gamble
Aug 27th 2000
15
                     RE: ladidadidadida
Aug 27th 2000
20
           RE: Understand/Don't Understand
Aug 25th 2000
9
                RE: Understand/Don't Understand
Aug 27th 2000
11
                     get your @$$ home son !
uncle_clarence_tomas
Aug 27th 2000
18
      RE: Sure...
Aug 25th 2000
5
           RE: Sure...
Aug 26th 2000
10
                blahblahblah
Aug 27th 2000
13
                     RE: blahblahblah
Aug 27th 2000
16
                          analyse
Aug 27th 2000
17
                               Krewcial, why are you still dealing with this fool?
Aug 27th 2000
19
                               RE: analyse
Aug 27th 2000
21
Voltaire, baby!
Aug 25th 2000
7
sorry I dropped out...
Aug 28th 2000
22
To Mke and Binlahab
Aug 28th 2000
23
RE: To Mke and Binlahab
Aug 29th 2000
26
RE: To Mke and Binlahab
Aug 29th 2000
30
man, dont put me in this
Aug 29th 2000
28
I meant Battousai
Aug 29th 2000
29
*Sigh* Since you called me out...
Aug 29th 2000
32
      RE: *Sigh* Since you called me out...
Aug 29th 2000
33
yes, I am replying to you
Aug 28th 2000
24
      RE: yes, I am replying to you
Aug 29th 2000
25
      RE: yes, I am replying to you
Aug 29th 2000
35
      RE: yes, I am replying to you
Aug 30th 2000
43
           round and round we go...
Aug 30th 2000
45
                RE: round and round we go...
Aug 30th 2000
48
                     keeping it short..
Aug 30th 2000
49
                          hey mke
Aug 31st 2000
50
                               RE: hey mke
Aug 31st 2000
51
      krewcial's 5 francs
Aug 30th 2000
37
           speaking of exploitation and "5 francs"...
Aug 30th 2000
38
           RE: krewcial's 5 francs
Aug 30th 2000
44
      RE: yes, I am replying to you
Aug 29th 2000
31
           RE: yes, I am replying to you
Aug 29th 2000
36
                RE: yes, I am replying to you
Aug 30th 2000
39
internet conservatives are funny, n/m
Aug 29th 2000
27
finally a good post! n/m
Aug 29th 2000
34
yaddayaddayadda
Aug 30th 2000
40
RE: yaddayaddayadda
Aug 30th 2000
41
glad to see this....
Aug 30th 2000
46
      true
Aug 30th 2000
47
Calling it a day
Aug 30th 2000
42

k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Wed Aug-23-00 09:36 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "representative democracy"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Besides it's just semantics anyway. We have the same nobles and landed gentry that we had in england.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-23-00 09:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "RE: From the mind of Alexander Tyler"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Please explain to me the difference between a democracy and a republic (your sig is entertaining, but not very informative).

BTW, France is a Republic, the UK is a constitutional monarchy, aren't they both democracies?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Thu Aug-24-00 04:39 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "Sure..."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

A democracy is a form of government in which people are allowed to vote on representatives, government officials, and often vote on certain government issues (referendums) with no regard to the laws made prior. The system is quite simple; majority rules.

A constitutional republic is a form of government in which representatives are elected democratically, but the laws that are made by the representatives cannot go above the chief law document of the land (the Constitution). All laws must be written in accordance to that document, or they are null and void. A republic puts the law above people.

You see, the problem with democracy is that the majority wins, and do not take the minority's views into consideration, which can lead to oppression. For example, suppose this country was to go entirely democratic, and Christians get a national referendum on next year's ballot voting on whether or not to make the US a Christian state. Of course, the Constitution has already said no government will respect or honor a religion. However, in a democracy majority rules, and as long as they have 51% of the vote, this will be a Christian state. It's the same way with almost every issue.

As for my quote, the logic is quite simple.....the majority of the people understand that they can use the elections to elect representatives that will give them "assistance" in the form of government programs, tax credits, tax writeoffs and such. But the problem is, that someone has to pay for it, which of course is a minority of the people (the rich). What will happen is that most of the taxes will be paid by a minority of the people, as it is today. Sooner or later, the rich are going to get tired of paying the majority's taxes and something has to give.

There is another thing too. If you heard Al Gore's speech last week you would have heard him talking about a tax cut Bush is trying to prepare in which for every $10 the rich gets, the middle class would get a dime and the poor a penny. Why is that? Because that's exactly how the tax rolls are now. The rich would simply get back what they paid.

The Libertarian Party, the only party that wants to actually shrink the size of the federal government, believes the Constitution nor the Founding Fathers did not want government to be in control of peoples' lives. The essence of government is the lack of power the government has and the power the people actually have. Therefore, alot of these government programs gotta go, and restore faith in the private sector.

As for Britain and France, I dunno much about their governments. I do know that a "constitutional monarchy" is mainly a fraud, since Elizabeth nor any of the royal family has any political power and are mainly figureheads. I think I would call them a feudal democracy, since the House of Lords is done by birthright, and the House of Commons is straight democracy, in which the Prime Minister is appointed by the majority party from the House of Commons. As for France, I dunno about.

Now do you understand the sig?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Thu Aug-24-00 10:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Understand/Don't Understand"
In response to Reply # 3


          

>A democracy is a form of
>government in which people are
>allowed to vote on representatives,
>government officials, and often vote
>on certain government issues (referendums)
>with no regard to the
>laws made prior. The
>system is quite simple; majority
>rules.
>

With no reference to prior laws? I doubt that. That may be the official definition, but in real life referendums are about changing, adding or repealing laws. Plus all "democratic" countries (I believe) have bodies which examine the legality of all new laws (whether made by referendum or by the legislative body). And BTW, how often are there referendums? Not often, apart from Switzerland. It's not really a common law-making device.

>A constitutional republic is a form
>of government in which representatives
>are elected democratically, but the
>laws that are made by
>the representatives cannot go above
>the chief law document of
>the land (the Constitution).
>All laws must be written
>in accordance to that document,
>or they are null and
>void. A republic puts
>the law above people.
>

Sure, but that Constitution can be modified. In France, we are at the 5th Republic, which means that were are using the 5th Constitution. The 4 others collapsed for various reasons (often war, Napoleon...).

>You see, the problem with democracy
>is that the majority wins,
>and do not take the
>minority's views into consideration, which
>can lead to oppression.

It's funny how "power to the people" leads to oppression.

>For example, suppose this country
>was to go entirely democratic,
>and Christians get a national
>referendum on next year's ballot
>voting on whether or not
>to make the US a
>Christian state. Of course,
>the Constitution has already said
>no government will respect or
>honor a religion. However,
>in a democracy majority rules,
>and as long as they
>have 51% of the vote,
>this will be a Christian
>state. It's the same
>way with almost every issue.
>

Wouldn't that rather be a referendum about eliminating the freedom of religious practice?
You believe that being a democracy means that all previous laws have no power?
In your example, let's assume that the State granted freedom of religious practice. A referendum to make the State Christian would be deemed illegal and void. However a referendum to remove the freedom of religious practice would be possible. Although that would go against the bill of Human Rights (and in Europe would be nullified by the EU).

>
>As for my quote, the logic
>is quite simple.....

I was talking about the sheep/wolf part. The other part isn't particularly entertaining.

>There is another thing too.
>If you heard Al Gore's
>speech last week you would
>have heard him talking about
>a tax cut Bush is
>trying to prepare in which
>for every $10 the rich
>gets,

Gets in income or tax cuts?

>the middle class would
>get a dime and the
>poor a penny.

In tax cuts, income or in assistance?

Why
>is that? Because that's
>exactly how the tax rolls
>are now. The rich
>would simply get back what
>they paid.
>

As you can see, I didn't understand what you were talking about, please explain. However, it seems to fly in the face of your "the rich will get sick of paying for assistance to the poor" theory.

>The Libertarian Party, the only party
>that wants to actually shrink
>the size of the federal
>government, believes the Constitution nor
>the Founding Fathers did not
>want government to be in
>control of peoples' lives.
>The essence of government is
>the lack of power the
>government has and the power
>the people actually have.
>Therefore, alot of these government
>programs gotta go, and restore
>faith in the private sector.
>
>

I don't want the government to be overly powerful (an assumption you made in our previous, more heated debates ). However, neither do I want the private sector (or rather, individual companies) to be controlling my life (you however, seem to want this). I want to control my own life. I think a step in that direction would be democracy executed at many levels, voting much more frequently and much more easily (i.e. not making it so people have to go out of there way on a special day to vote).

>As for Britain and France, I
>dunno much about their governments.
> I do know that
>a "constitutional monarchy" is
>mainly a fraud, since Elizabeth
>nor any of the royal
>family has any political power
>and are mainly figureheads.

That's what constitutional monarchy means.

>I think I would call
>them a feudal democracy,

lol

>since
>the House of Lords is
>done by birthright,

Yeah, I'm always outraged by that shit (I went to university in the UK for 3 years), and by the trouble they're having in getting rid of it, and the mess they're making of doing that.

>Now do you understand the sig?

As I said, you explained the wrong part! But it's all good now.

>Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian
>Conservative.

Has the "Libertarian" been added recently, Or was I a victim of selective reading?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Fri Aug-25-00 02:02 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: Understand/Don't Understand"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

>With no reference to prior laws?
>I doubt that. That may
>be the official definition, but
>in real life referendums are
>about changing, adding or repealing
>laws. Plus all "democratic" countries
>(I believe) have bodies which
>examine the legality of all
>new laws (whether made by
>referendum or by the legislative
>body). And BTW, how often
>are there referendums? Not often,
>apart from Switzerland. It's not
>really a common law-making device.

Yeah but if the representatives and the citizens vote to override the present laws, it generally can be done. And once again, in both legislature and referendums, they can be done with only a majority of the vote.

As for referendums, I dunno about Europe, but they do it here alot at the state and local levels, given they are separate governments from the feds, who oversee them all. I'm sure if you will look around, you might find some that do use referendums also, just not at the national level. You see the problem is that people in the States believe that every issue should be decided democratically among the people. Not only is that unrealistic, but dangerous. Such laws that aren't established in comparison to previous law will cause conflict between the minority and the majority.

>>A constitutional republic is a form
>>of government in which representatives
>>are elected democratically, but the
>>laws that are made by
>>the representatives cannot go above
>>the chief law document of
>>the land (the Constitution).
>>All laws must be written
>>in accordance to that document,
>>or they are null and
>>void. A republic puts
>>the law above people.
>>

>Sure, but that Constitution can be
>modified. In France, we are
>at the 5th Republic, which
>means that were are using
>the 5th Constitution. The 4
>others collapsed for various reasons
>(often war, Napoleon...).

5th? The hell have you guys been doing? We're still on our first. *L*

It's REALLY hard to add an Amendment to the Constitution here. If I'm not mistaken, it has to be approved by 75% of Congress, signed by the President (Slick Willie), and then approved by 75% of the state governments. If I'm not mistaking, the last amendment approved was the Compensation of Representatives Act in 1992. Before that, 21 yrs had passed since the last one, which gave 18 yr olds the right to vote. There have only been 27 amendments passed in this country's 224 yr history. Other than that, all laws made must adhere to the Constitution.

>>You see, the problem with democracy
>>is that the majority wins,
>>and do not take the
>>minority's views into consideration, which
>>can lead to oppression.
>
>It's funny how "power to the
>people" leads to oppression.

That's not power to the people. That's power to the majority.

>Wouldn't that rather be a referendum
>about eliminating the freedom of
>religious practice?
>You believe that being a democracy
>means that all previous laws
>have no power?
>In your example, let's assume that
>the State granted freedom of
>religious practice. A referendum to
>make the State Christian would
>be deemed illegal and void.

When I said christian state, I meant christian nation. it's a term of speech here...

Of course the referendum would eliminate the freedom of religious practice, but wouldn't it be nice to know what religion they would want practiced?

>However a referendum to remove
>the freedom of religious practice
>would be possible. Although that
>would go against the bill
>of Human Rights (and in
>Europe would be nullified by
>the EU).

Remind me never to live in Europe. I don't like the idea of one large governmental body that can override national soverignities. But once again, I'm sure the EU isn't a democratic government. How are representatives chosen anyways? Appointed?

>I was talking about the sheep/wolf
>part. The other part isn't
>particularly entertaining.

I know I know, i was hoping you'd get the message through that and the other stuff I was saying, so I'll break it down for ya.

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.

In a democracy, simply put, majority rules. Hence, there are more wolves than sheep, so, the wolves make the rules.

* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner.

In a Democratic Republic, the majority party controls the government, in which they make the rules and such. They have a law document, but they can vote what they want to out. I think this is the representative of French government.

* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

Simple. The Constitution overrides all. No ifs ands or buts. In our Constitution, the right to own guns is protected (although it is a hot issue over here at this time). Therefore, the sheep have access to guns and can use them in self defense.

>As you can see, I didn't
>understand what you were talking
>about, please explain. However, it
>seems to fly in the
>face of your "the rich
>will get sick of paying
>for assistance to the poor"
>theory.

Alright. Bush is proposing a tax cut that essentially is set up that for every $10 dollars that the higher income earners get, a dime will go to the middle income earners and a penny to the lower income earners. Gore is complaining about this, saying it isn't fair. However what Gore isn't telling people is that's how the tax bracket here is set up, in which for every $10 dollars the rich pays, the middle class pays a dime and the poor a penny. Hence, they should get back as much as they paid. Understand now?

As for the rich/poor theory, the whole point is that every year the tax rolls put more financial responsibility on the rich, and less on the poor. The poor virtually do not pay hardly any taxes, while most people that make over $80, pending on how many are in the household, pay up to 40% of their annual income on taxes. Sooner or later, somethings gotta give, whether it's from cutting taxes or giving out tax credits. Not to mention it will hurt morality and motivation. What's the use of making alot of money if the government is going to take it just to give it to someone else? The average American, if they had to pay taxes first before they could get their full income, would be working for the government until sometime in mid May.

>>The Libertarian Party, the only party
>>that wants to actually shrink
>>the size of the federal
>>government, believes the Constitution nor
>>the Founding Fathers did not
>>want government to be in
>>control of peoples' lives.
>>The essence of government is
>>the lack of power the
>>government has and the power
>>the people actually have.
>>Therefore, alot of these government
>>programs gotta go, and restore
>>faith in the private sector.

>I don't want the government to
>be overly powerful (an assumption
>you made in our previous,
>more heated debates ).

But see, that's the problem. When you allow the majority to control the government, as in democracy, that is making the government overtly powerful. Why? Because the majority is going to use the government to impose their will.

>However, neither do I want
>the private sector (or rather,
>individual companies) to be controlling
>my life (you however, seem
>to want this).

I don't allow businesses to control my life. Alot of people seem to forget that you control who you do business with, not the other way around. Now if there are one or two businesses in that market, that's different, but competition spurs businesses to give the people the best products. Sure I believe in government interaction with businesses, but only to the point where they eliminate fraud and cutthroat competition. That's it, that's all.

I want
>to control my own life.

Well then less government power is better, along with the power to make individual decisions about your life. You shouldn't be advocating majority (mob) decisions on issues concerning the state of the nation. That should be decided by the laws of that nation based on the Constitution (although I must say, you guys must not be too good at making constitutions).

>I think a step in
>that direction would be democracy
>executed at many levels, voting
>much more frequently and much
>more easily (i.e. not making
>it so people have to
>go out of there way
>on a special day to
>vote).

See that's what was meant by the Tyler quote. That means the government would be controlled by a majority of the people, including the government treasury. To do so will stifle the economy, because lets face it, not everyone is a professional economist or knows what is actually going in in the economy. It's the same with government and national issues also.

>>As for Britain and France, I
>>dunno much about their governments.
>> I do know that
>>a "constitutional monarchy" is
>>mainly a fraud, since Elizabeth
>>nor any of the royal
>>family has any political power
>>and are mainly figureheads.
>
>That's what constitutional monarchy means.

Yeah but big deal. When you add the word monarchy it makes it sound as if they have equal or even some power, which they dont. Hence the term is moot.

>Yeah, I'm always outraged by that
>shit (I went to university
>in the UK for 3
>years), and by the trouble
>they're having in getting rid
>of it, and the mess
>they're making of doing that.

Yeah well what do you expect, they're Brits....

>>Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian
>>Conservative.

>Has the "Libertarian" been added recently,
>Or was I a victim
>of selective reading?

You read right. I added it.
I had to. Too many people had the idea that I was a black Republican Party member. Hell no. I think Libertarian explains me a little better, both politically and in ideals also.
______________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Fri Aug-25-00 02:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "once again"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

>You
>see the problem is that
>people in the States believe
>that every issue should be
>decided democratically among the people.
>Not only is that
>unrealistic, but dangerous. Such
>laws that aren't established in
>comparison to previous law will
>cause conflict between the minority
>and the majority.

What you are describing is not democracy. It's bad management (are you surprised that a socialist thinks good management is important ?).

But there's a bigger problem with your statement.

You keep on talking about 'majority' and 'minority' like these are two well outlined groups of people that never change.

What is your definition of both ?
Rich people = minority ? Poor and middleclass = majority ?

What about rich people loosing their money or poor people getting richer ? What about the majority that is PRO guns ? They might be a minority when it comes to being PRO accessible health care, where does that leave you with your theory ?

>It's REALLY hard to add an
>Amendment to the Constitution here.
> If I'm not mistaken,
>it has to be approved
>by 75% of Congress, signed
>by the President (Slick Willie),
>and then approved by 75%
>of the state governments.
>If I'm not mistaking, the
>last amendment approved was the
>Compensation of Representatives Act in
>1992. Before that, 21
>yrs had passed since the
>last one, which gave 18
>yr olds the right to
>vote. There have only
>been 27 amendments passed in
>this country's 224 yr history.
> Other than that, all
>laws made must adhere to
>the Constitution.

My question is : what does this have to do with the US being a republic ? Show me how the US being non democratic and a constitution with only few amendments are directly correlated.

What makes you say this is impossible within a democracy ?

>That's not power to the people.
>That's power to the
>majority.

Correct. ALL PEOPLE is the majority, be it a rather overwhelming majority. I guess 100% majority is a majority too

>Remind me never to live in
>Europe. I don't like
>the idea of one large
>governmental body that can override
>national soverignities. But once
>again, I'm sure the EU
>isn't a democratic government.
>How are representatives chosen anyways?
>Appointed?

Too bad you felt so sure. Don't worry, you're wrong about more stuff.

>Alright. Bush is proposing a
>tax cut that essentially is
>set up that for every
>$10 dollars that the higher
>income earners get, a dime
>will go to the middle
>income earners and a penny
>to the lower income earners.
> Gore is complaining about
>this, saying it isn't fair.
> However what Gore isn't
>telling people is that's how
>the tax bracket here is
>set up, in which for
>every $10 dollars the rich
>pays, the middle class pays
>a dime and the poor
>a penny. Hence, they
>should get back as much
>as they paid. Understand
>now?

How about people who used to pay little taxes (since they were poor) all their life, have become extremely rich the last couple of years and will now get back those $10 when they only paid one penny ? And vice versa ? A poor guy who used to pay $10 (since he was rich) and now gets one penny ?

Great system indeed.

>The average
>American, if they had to
>pay taxes first before they
>could get their full income,
>would be working for the
>government until sometime in mid
>May.

They don't just work for the government. A lot of taxes are being used (at least over here on this 'terrible' continent Europe) for roads, schools, etcetera. Which means people benefit from that.

PLUS companies benefit too (roads for transport), schools prepare kids to be good employees with middleclass values, ...

>But see, that's the problem.
>When you allow the majority
>to control the government, as
>in democracy, that is making
>the government overtly powerful.
>Why? Because the majority
>is going to use the
>government to impose their will.

What's the problem if the majority = 100% ? Meaning that the government provides for all people ?

>I don't allow businesses to control
>my life. Alot of
>people seem to forget that
>you control who you do
>business with, not the other
>way around. Now if
>there are one or two
>businesses in that market, that's
>different,

You're not THAT naive, are you ?
AOL-Time Warner ?
Procter & Gamble ?
Ford ?
Dole ?
Microsoft ?

You don't control who you do business with. Sure, it was your 'free' choice to work with Windows and buy those Dole bananas...


>but competition spurs businesses
>to give the people the
>best products.

Sure, that's why we have cigarettes with addictive toxics in 'm, that's why General Motors got their asses sued for making faulty cars, KNOWING it and still continuing selling 'm (real reason : it was cheaper to keep it faulty and to pay insurance companies now and then than making the car safer)

>believe in government interaction with
>businesses, but only to the
>point where they eliminate fraud
>and cutthroat competition. That's
>it, that's all.

At least we agree on something.
But you plan on doing so with a small government with a $10 budget ? If you want to face billion dollar companies, you need to be at least as strong as them.

>That
>should be decided by the
>laws of that nation based
>on the Constitution (although I
>must say, you guys must
>not be too good at
>making constitutions).

What is your Constitution based on ? LOL. Sad man, no sense of history whatsoever.

>>(I went to university
>>in the UK for 3
>>years), and by the trouble
>>they're having in getting rid
>>of it, and the mess
>>they're making of doing that.
>
>Yeah well what do you expect,
>they're Brits....

Irony/sarcasm translates bad on the Web, ignorance doesn't.


krewcialist

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 01:48 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "RE: once again"
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

>>You
>>see the problem is that
>>people in the States believe
>>that every issue should be
>>decided democratically among the people.
>>Not only is that
>>unrealistic, but dangerous. Such
>>laws that aren't established in
>>comparison to previous law will
>>cause conflict between the minority
>>and the majority.
>
>What you are describing is not
>democracy. It's bad management
>(are you surprised that a
>socialist thinks good management is
>important ?).

Considering socialism is more authoritarian than capitalism, nope.

>But there's a bigger problem with
>your statement.
>You keep on talking about 'majority'
>and 'minority' like these are
>two well outlined groups of
>people that never change.

Not true. I fully realize they do change. But in that same aspect, not all issues are as important as another. Hence, the majority of an issue like say, abortion would not have the influencial power over a majority that has direction over what to do with your tax dollars. A majority on child safety, would not have as much importance as one that is decides how the strength of national defense. Sure abortion and child safety is important, but nowhere near the measures of those two.

>What is your definition of both
>?
>Rich people = minority ?
>Poor and middleclass = majority
>?

Well duh, that's what it is. There are always going to be more poor and middle class than rich. That's the whole point of calling them that, because they have less money than a certain percentage of the others. So yes the rich will always be a minority, in whatever scoiety.

>What about rich people loosing their
>money or poor people getting
>richer ?

What about it? Their tax burdens will change along with their income shuffles. The former rich guy will be let off the hook while the formerly poor one will have to come out of the pockets.

What about
>the majority that is PRO
>guns ? They might
>be a minority when it
>comes to being PRO accessible
>health care, where does that
>leave you with your theory
>?

What about it? It simply means someone isn't brainwashed and can think logically. However it is not in their hands, it should apply to the principles of law and not the wishes of popular opinion.

>My question is : what does
>this have to do with
>the US being a republic
>? Show me how
>the US being non democratic
>and a constitution with only
>few amendments are directly correlated.

Because the people elect the representatives. That's the whole point of a republican form of government, and not just the majority political party setting up the government. Why do you think in alot of these democratic countries the political parties stay in power for 50-60 years? Because they political parties set it up where they can keep power that long. Hell in Mexico they finally ousted a political party that had control of the presidency for over 71 years. That's ridiculous.

>What makes you say this is
>impossible within a democracy ?

It's not possible within yours because you want an election in which people vote on the issues going on. There is a difference between having national and state representatives vote on the amendments and having it based on popular opinion.

>Correct. ALL PEOPLE is the
>majority, be it a rather
>overwhelming majority. I guess
>100% majority is a majority
>too

Yeah but the majority doesn't, nor ever, consist of all people. Therefore, that 100% majority is unrealistic.

>>Alright. Bush is proposing a
>>tax cut that essentially is
>>set up that for every
>>$10 dollars that the higher
>>income earners get, a dime
>>will go to the middle
>>income earners and a penny
>>to the lower income earners.
>> Gore is complaining about
>>this, saying it isn't fair.
>> However what Gore isn't
>>telling people is that's how
>>the tax bracket here is
>>set up, in which for
>>every $10 dollars the rich
>>pays, the middle class pays
>>a dime and the poor
>>a penny. Hence, they
>>should get back as much
>>as they paid. Understand
>>now?

>How about people who used to
>pay little taxes (since they
>were poor) all their life,
>have become extremely rich the
>last couple of years and
>will now get back those
>$10 when they only paid
>one penny ? And
>vice versa ? A
>poor guy who used to
>pay $10 (since he was
>rich) and now gets one
>penny ?

That will all come back to them during tax time, and will be justified.

>>The average
>>American, if they had to
>>pay taxes first before they
>>could get their full income,
>>would be working for the
>>government until sometime in mid
>>May.
>
>They don't just work for the
>government. A lot of
>taxes are being used (at
>least over here on this
>'terrible' continent Europe) for roads,
>schools, etcetera. Which means
>people benefit from that.

I don't mind that. However the big government spending programs, along with wealth redistribution is totally excessive, not to mentions punishing people for being successful. What's the use of success if government is going to take my spoils?

>PLUS companies benefit too (roads for
>transport), schools prepare kids to
>be good employees with middleclass
>values, ...

What they should be doing is teaching kids how to aim high and be ambitious. But oh well, that's just asking for too much. They got to be under the thumb of government, yanno.

>What's the problem if the majority
>= 100% ? Meaning
>that the government provides for
>all people ?

But the majority is never going to BE 100%. And what about people providing for themselves instead of government doing it? Government is not the parents of the citizenry.

>You're not THAT naive, are you
>?
>AOL-Time Warner ?
>Procter & Gamble ?
>Ford ?
>Dole ?
>Microsoft ?

So, so, so, so, and so.
The most I do as in AOL-Time Warner is watch some Turner owned channels (since I am from Atlanta). Not much Proctor and Gamble either. I don't own a car, I use public transportation (buses and trains) I buy fruit from the farmers market, and right now I am using a Macintosh to type this to you.

Sure, all these companies are huge, and they have a span of influence. However, if you allow them to take advantage of you then it's noones fault but your own. The simple fact is there are plenty of businesses big or small that you can divulge your time and effort towards. The problem is that you have to take initiative into finding out where they are, given you don't want to give your business to someone else. There are actually choices in this world.

>You don't control who you do
>business with. Sure, it
>was your 'free' choice to
>work with Windows and buy
>those Dole bananas...

It sure was. I don't have to get on a computer at all. And I don't see nothing wrong with Windows, and I'm sure not too many people do either. If Windows wasn't convient, they wouldn't use it. It wasn't like Bill Gates held everyone up at gunpoint and said "buy this dmmmit". People bought it because there wasn't anything remotely better or more compatible.

>Sure, that's why we have cigarettes
>with addictive toxics in 'm,
>that's why General Motors got
>their asses sued for making
>faulty cars, KNOWING it and
>still continuing selling 'm (real
>reason : it was cheaper
>to keep it faulty and
>to pay insurance companies now
>and then than making the
>car safer)

What do we call that? Fraud. Is fraud illegal? Yes. Case closed.

>But you plan on doing so
>with a small government with
>a $10 budget ?
>If you want to face
>billion dollar companies, you need
>to be at least as
>strong as them.

You don't think government is as strong as any business? Please. Governments are quickly becoming trillion dollar industries yearly. But that doesn't mean that all that money goes into fighting corruption neither.

>>That
>>should be decided by the
>>laws of that nation based
>>on the Constitution (although I
>>must say, you guys must
>>not be too good at
>>making constitutions).
>
>What is your Constitution based on
>? LOL. Sad
>man, no sense of history
>whatsoever.

Oh, so I guess you'll tell me, Mr. Historian?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 03:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "ladidadidadida"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

>Considering socialism is more authoritarian than
>capitalism, nope.

I love how you always substantiate your statements.

>not
>all issues are as important
>as another. Hence, the
>majority of an issue like
>say, abortion would not have
>the influencial power over a
>majority that has direction over
>what to do with your
>tax dollars. A majority
>on child safety, would not
>have as much importance as
>one that is decides how
>the strength of national defense.
> Sure abortion and child
>safety is important, but nowhere
>near the measures of those
>two.

And who decides the importance of both ? Your enlightened self ? Based on what ? With what authority ? You don't have children, right ?

>>What is your definition of both
>>?
>>Rich people = minority ?
>>Poor and middleclass = majority
>>?
>
>Well duh, that's what it is.
>There are always going
>to be more poor and
>middle class than rich.
>That's the whole point of
>calling them that, because they
>have less money than a
>certain percentage of the others.
>So yes the rich
>will always be a minority,
>in whatever scoiety.

In terms of number of people, yes. In terms of access to power and resources, however, it's a very different story.

>There
>is a difference between having
>national and state representatives vote
>on the amendments and having
>it based on popular opinion.

Like those representatives aren't elected based on popular opinion ? All I've seen so far are two presidential candidates who try everything to appeal to everyone, even if it means contradicting themselves from state to state. Their only program is to become president, no matter how.

At least Nader has a program that doesn't change every 2 days and isn't based on popular opinion.

So maybe you should vote for your good friend Ralphie if you really mean what you say.

>>PLUS companies benefit too (roads for
>>transport), schools prepare kids to
>>be good employees with middleclass
>>values, ...
>
>What they should be doing is
>teaching kids how to aim
>high and be ambitious.
>But oh well, that's just
>asking for too much.
>They got to be under
>the thumb of government, yanno.

Who decides what the role of schools is ? Your enlightened self again ? Aiming high and being ambitious are such general remarks that everyone will agree with it. However, today if you aim high in terms of respect for the environment or are ambitious about grass roots education or alphabetisation, there aren't much rewards/recognition in doing that.

>>You're not THAT naive, are you
>>?
>>AOL-Time Warner ?
>>Procter & Gamble ?
>>Ford ?
>>Dole ?
>>Microsoft ?
>
>So, so, so, so, and so.
>
>The most I do as in
>AOL-Time Warner is watch some
>Turner owned channels (since I
>am from Atlanta).

You don't own any CD's then ?
You don't watch any movies ?

>Not
>much Proctor and Gamble either.

Ariel, Lenor, Pampers, Always, Oil of Olaz, Infasil, Old Spice, Ellen Bertrix, Dreft, Milton, Mr Propre, Ace, Antikal, Vidal Sassoon, Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Laura Biagiotti, Giorgio Beverly Hills, Hugo Boss, and 290 other products.

>I don't own a
>car, I use public transportation
>(buses and trains)

Who made those buses and trains you're riding ?
The government ?

>I buy
>fruit from the farmers market,
>and right now I am
>using a Macintosh to type
>this to you.

That doesn't change the fact that the Web and everything that's computer related is heavily 'Microsofted' and that you don't have much choice. You either have to go for Windows or MacOS (BeOs and Linux are still marginal). That doesn't bother me that much, but it's just one company basically controlling the way our economy works. Take away all Windows computers and see what happens.

>>Sure, that's why we have cigarettes
>>with addictive toxics in 'm,
>>that's why General Motors got
>>their asses sued for making
>>faulty cars, KNOWING it and
>>still continuing selling 'm (real
>>reason : it was cheaper
>>to keep it faulty and
>>to pay insurance companies now
>>and then than making the
>>car safer)
>
>What do we call that?
>Fraud. Is fraud illegal?
>Yes. Case closed.

Tell that to those people who've had an accident in such a car, and wished there had been some way to effectively control General Motors.

>>But you plan on doing so
>>with a small government with
>>a $10 budget ?
>>If you want to face
>>billion dollar companies, you need
>>to be at least as
>>strong as them.
>
>You don't think government is as
>strong as any business?
>Please. Governments are quickly
>becoming trillion dollar industries yearly.
>But that doesn't mean
>that all that money goes
>into fighting corruption neither.

The biggest corporations are already bigger now than some governments, and this trend is getting stronger as we speak.

Governments have a national legislation, while companies operate globally. That's the real problem.


>>What is your Constitution based on
>>? LOL. Sad
>>man, no sense of history
>>whatsoever.
>
>Oh, so I guess you'll tell
>me, Mr. Historian?

Are you serious ?

Who colonized & killed the native Americans and installed a new state ? Europeans. That's where your constitution goes back to.


krewc



OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 04:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "more Procter & Gamble"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

>>Not
>>much Proctor and Gamble either.

Dodot
Luvs
Pampers
Always
Lines
Whisper
Tampax
Bounty
Charmin
Puffs
Cover Girl
Max Factor
Hugo Boss
Head & Shoulders
Pantene Pro-V
Pert Plus
Physique
Rejoice
Vidal Sassoon
Secret
Olay Skin Care
Safeguardµ
Zest
Olay Cosmetics
SK-II
Ace Bleach and Prewash Additives
Dryel
Febreze
Cascade
Dawn
Fairy Dish
Joy
Bounce
Downy
Lenor Fabric Conditioner
Fit
Swiffer
Ace Detergent
Ariel
Bold
Cheer
Dash
Gain
Tide
Crisco
Folgers
Millstone
Sunny Delight
Jif
Pringles
Actonel
Asacol
NyQuil/DayQuil
PUR
Vicks VapoRub
Crest
Eukanuba
Iams.

Those are just the key brands.











krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 07:58 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "RE: ladidadidadida"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

>>Considering socialism is more authoritarian than
>>capitalism, nope.
>
>I love how you always substantiate
>your statements.

Thanks. I was sure I explained how the majority uses government to act as the voice of law over the minority, but I had to explain that for the 100th time.

>>not
>>all issues are as important
>>as another. Hence, the
>>majority of an issue like
>>say, abortion would not have
>>the influencial power over a
>>majority that has direction over
>>what to do with your
>>tax dollars. A majority
>>on child safety, would not
>>have as much importance as
>>one that is decides how
>>the strength of national defense.
>> Sure abortion and child
>>safety is important, but nowhere
>>near the measures of those
>>two.
>And who decides the importance of
>both ? Your enlightened
>self ? Based on
>what ? With what
>authority ? You don't
>have children, right ?

It's not a judgement factor, it's a control factor. If you think the abortion issue has more importance and control over the direction of the nation than how taxes are being spent and given to, then you're crazy. Same goes with foreign policy.

>In terms of number of people,
>yes. In terms of
>access to power and resources,
>however, it's a very different
>story.

You said yourself that the situation can change. Poor people can be richer, and vice versa. Hence, the point is that they have the opportunity to make it accessible.

>>There
>>is a difference between having
>>national and state representatives vote
>>on the amendments and having
>>it based on popular opinion.

>Like those representatives aren't elected based
>on popular opinion ?
>All I've seen so far
>are two presidential candidates who
>try everything to appeal to
>everyone, even if it means
>contradicting themselves from state to
>state. Their only program
>is to become president, no
>matter how.

True. But there is a major difference between one representative and a slew of people. Not every representative votes the exact way everyone wants him to vote.

>At least Nader has a program
>that doesn't change every 2
>days and isn't based on
>popular opinion.

Actually Nader's ideals are more popular than most people believe, and that's REAL scary. I see the Democratic party adopting alot of his ideals sooner or later. It's only a matter of time. Hopefully by then the Libertarians will have a strong following also, and can combat them from hurting the nation.

>So maybe you should vote for
>your good friend Ralphie if
>you really mean what you
>say.

Just because he has a concrete stance doesn't mean I have to like his stance. I don't care how firm he is with his beliefs I care about those beliefs making sense or not, which they don't.

>Who decides what the role of
>schools is ? Your
>enlightened self again ?
>Aiming high and being ambitious
>are such general remarks that
>everyone will agree with it.
> However, today if you
>aim high in terms of
>respect for the environment or
>are ambitious about grass roots
>education or alphabetisation, there aren't
>much rewards/recognition in doing that.

Actually I advocate private schooling, but if we are to have public schools, then I say take it out of the hands of the federal government and have the local school boards decide the content of the subject matter in contrast to most college requirements.

>>>You're not THAT naive, are you
>>>?
>>>AOL-Time Warner ?
>>>Procter & Gamble ?
>>>Ford ?
>>>Dole ?
>>>Microsoft ?
>>
>>So, so, so, so, and so.
>>
>>The most I do as in
>>AOL-Time Warner is watch some
>>Turner owned channels (since I
>>am from Atlanta).

>You don't own any CD's then
>?
>You don't watch any movies ?

Actually, I don't own any CD's. Why buy CD's when you have the radio? You have the internet, where you can listen to music for free all around the world? It's called using your resources.

As for movies, like CD's I have a choice on what movies I want to buy/watch, or I don't have to watch movies at all. Therefore you do have control over who you do business with.

>>Not
>>much Proctor and Gamble either.
>
>Ariel, Lenor, Pampers, Always, Oil of
>Olaz, Infasil, Old Spice, Ellen
>Bertrix, Dreft, Milton, Mr Propre,
>Ace, Antikal, Vidal Sassoon, Pantene,
>Head & Shoulders, Laura Biagiotti,
>Giorgio Beverly Hills, Hugo Boss,
>and 290 other products.

Out of that I might buy Head & Shoulders on occasion, but that isn't my point. You act like these are the ONLY products out on the market, and they aren't. It's simple. Look and find, or don't use that product at all.

>>I don't own a
>>car, I use public transportation
>>(buses and trains)
>
>Who made those buses and trains
>you're riding ?
>The government ?

Actually it was a public company, not a car company, as most public transportation is in this country.

>That doesn't change the fact that
>the Web and everything that's
>computer related is heavily 'Microsofted'
>and that you don't have
>much choice. You either
>have to go for Windows
>or MacOS (BeOs and Linux
>are still marginal). That
>doesn't bother me that much,
>but it's just one company
>basically controlling the way our
>economy works. Take away
>all Windows computers and see
>what happens.

But one reason why is because people actually LIKE Windows. Sure there are some bugs, but there isn't anything out there better and more compatible. Remember, Windows was made to accompany DOS systems, and DOS was way popular than Apple products before Bill Gates made Windows. Therefore, when Windows was made it only made it even more mainstream and more appealing. But anyways, the point is that people don't use the other names in the market not because they don't have a choice, but because most people like the name brand product.

>>What do we call that?
>>Fraud. Is fraud illegal?
>>Yes. Case closed.

>Tell that to those people who've
>had an accident in such
>a car, and wished there
>had been some way to
>effectively control General Motors.

And how are you going to do that, by having government control them? Sure. The same rules apply whether government owns businesses or private sectors own them. Less competition means products have a tendency to become relaxed, hence faulty. So, considering government has no competition, they will give the consumer what they want to give them, not what they actually deserve.

>>into fighting corruption neither.
>
>The biggest corporations are already bigger
>now than some governments, and
>this trend is getting stronger
>as we speak.
>Governments have a national legislation, while
>companies operate globally. That's
>the real problem.

Actually, it's becoming smaller and smaller. Because the increase in business establishments, that means the major corporations don't have a individual hold on the economy like they used to. The most powerful companies are the ones of the past, from the 1890's and such. Microsoft does not have the stranglehold on the economy that US Steel did, and as the economy grows, that means their hold on it will get even smaller.

>Who colonized & killed the native
>Americans and installed a new
>state ? Europeans.
>That's where your constitution goes
>back to.

That was not due to the Constitution itself, it was due to bigoted people trying to use law and government when it was best convient. You read the Constitution and find where it says the persectution of Natives or any other people was constitutional. It's just that the people turned their backs on the whole thing. Most even advocated it.
________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Fri Aug-25-00 03:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "RE: Understand/Don't Understand"
In response to Reply # 6


          

>conflict between the minority
>and the majority.
>

I don't understand your take on democracy/majority rule. What is better than majority rule (not saying it's ideal)?
The reason I proposed intensive and easy access to decision-making processes through voting, is that it would probably increase people's desire to participate and inform themselves, as they see their wishes more precisely and locally executed.

>5th? The hell have you
>guys been doing? We're
>still on our first. *L*
>

As I said, wars and coup d'états overthrew them, and forced new constitutions to be written.

>
>It's REALLY hard to add an
>Amendment to the Constitution here.
> If I'm not mistaken,
>it has to be approved
>by 75% of Congress, signed
>by the President (Slick Willie),
>and then approved by 75%
>of the state governments.
>If I'm not mistaking, the
>last amendment approved was the
>Compensation of Representatives Act in
>1992. Before that, 21
>yrs had passed since the
>last one, which gave 18
>yr olds the right to
>vote. There have only
>been 27 amendments passed in
>this country's 224 yr history.
> Other than that, all
>laws made must adhere to
>the Constitution.
>
>>>You see, the problem with democracy
>>>is that the majority wins,
>>>and do not take the
>>>minority's views into consideration, which
>>>can lead to oppression.
>>
>>It's funny how "power to the
>>people" leads to oppression.
>
>That's not power to the people.
> That's power to the
>majority.
>

Again, what would better represent the people? As Krewcial pointed out, a multi-party system no doubt represents the people better. It's funny how in the UK and US there are mainly two parties, but nowadays you wonder which one is more right-wing...


>Of course the referendum would eliminate
>the freedom of religious practice,
>but wouldn't it be nice
>to know what religion they
>would want practiced?
>

Not really, cos as Krewcial pointed out, this referendum could never get off the ground. Any country deserving the name of democracy isn't about removing rights, but establishing some basic ones and upholding them for all. How many democracies are there by that definition?

>Remind me never to live in
>Europe.

Actually, you should.

>I don't like
>the idea of one large
>governmental body that can override
>national soverignities. But once
>again, I'm sure the EU
>isn't a democratic government.
>How are representatives chosen anyways?
> Appointed?

Man, the EU structure is so un-democratic, it's ridiculous. Basic breakdown:
The European Commission: Commissioners appointed by national governments.
European Parliament: deputies elected at national level by the people.
Unfortunately:
a. the Parliament is much weaker than the Commission
b. nobody cares about either, and yet the Commission and the EU in general are immensely powerful, and make economic and legislative decisions that affect us all daily.
I really hope we can get a Pan-European democratic system going. That would be amazing.

>
>>I was talking about the sheep/wolf
>>part. The other part isn't
>>particularly entertaining.
>

After paying close attention to your sheep/wolf explanation, I find it wholly ridiculous. The majority is not a wolf to the minority. And what do you define as the minority and majority?
Depending on the issue, you will alternate camps, and in some cases there will be no clear majority. Thus if the people get to vote on all the issues, you'll "win" on some and "lose" on others. It's called compromise. So there's no case of oppression.
In a constitutional democracy, you can't just out laws, as everything has to go through a body to make sure new laws are, well, constitutional.
And the gun analogy is ridiculous, but I guess the US infatuation with weaponry runs deep. Upholding human rights will do a lot more for freedom and peace than guns ever will.

>Alright. Bush is proposing a
>tax cut that essentially is
>set up that for every
>$10 dollars that the higher
>income earners get, a dime
>will go to the middle
>income earners and a penny
>to the lower income earners.
> Gore is complaining about
>this, saying it isn't fair.
> However what Gore isn't
>telling people is that's how
>the tax bracket here is
>set up, in which for
>every $10 dollars the rich
>pays, the middle class pays
>a dime and the poor
>a penny. Hence, they
>should get back as much
>as they paid. Understand
>now?
>

Perhaps. However, what is the point of giving the rich back as much as they paid? This type of mentality is what leads to diplomats not paying tax on gas (which means 60-70% of the price gets dropped). I know Mercedes are big cars and consume a lot, but even diplomats see how ridiculous this is (the honest ones, at least).

>As for the rich/poor theory, the
>whole point is that every
>year the tax rolls put
>more financial responsibility on the
>rich, and less on the
>poor.

Are you suggesting the reverse? Should the rich pay as much as the poor? Should everyone get out only what they put in?
I don't have stats, but I would like to know how much of wealth each 10-percentile owns. With those stats, one would probably see that there is no point in taxing the poor very much.
Plus, as Krewcial mentioned, the rich spend a lot of time finding out how to avoid paying their taxes. Plus, the US government loves handing out corporate welfare. Poor rich people.

>The poor virtually
>do not pay hardly any
>taxes,

I love the grammar of this sentence

>while most people that
>make over $80, pending on
>how many are in the
>household, pay up to 40%
>of their annual income on
>taxes.

It's a lot, I agree. And everyone knows that a lot of that money goes to waste.

>Sooner or later,
>somethings gotta give, whether it's
>from cutting taxes or giving
>out tax credits.

There seems to be a wide wave of tax-cutting going on right now (UK, US, France). Do you feel more motivated to do anything save consume more? Let's tax our environment a little bit more (woops, going off topic).

>The average
>American, if they had to
>pay taxes first before they
>could get their full income,
>would be working for the
>government until sometime in mid
>May.

And if workers recieved the full value of their labour, when would they stop working?

>When you allow the majority
>to control the government, as
>in democracy, that is making
>the government overtly powerful.
>Why? Because the majority
>is going to use the
>government to impose their will.
>

So who exactly should control government?

>
>>However, neither do I want
>>the private sector (or rather,
>>individual companies) to be controlling
>>my life (you however, seem
>>to want this).
>
>I don't allow businesses to control
>my life. Alot of
>people seem to forget that
>you control who you do
>business with, not the other
>way around.

Do you? if that is the case, why does Unilever market several different brands of soap, cosmetics, etc.? Why is the agri-business so reticent about accurate food labelling? You think businesses are just like "I'm good, but do business with whom you please"? Why do stores put so much thought into how they lay out their products?

Now if
>there are one or two
>businesses in that market, that's
>different, but competition spurs businesses
>to give the people the
>best products. Sure I
>believe in government interaction with
>businesses, but only to the
>point where they eliminate fraud
>and cutthroat competition. That's
>it, that's all.
>

Why should cutthroat competition be eliminated? A competitive atmosphere is good. And what about regulating working relations and conditions, environmental protection, product safety, etc.?

>Well then less government power is
>better, along with the power
>to make individual decisions about
>your life. You shouldn't
>be advocating majority (mob) decisions
>on issues concerning the state
>of the nation.

I advocate participative democracy, where people can readily take decisions and participate in processes that will affect them.

>See that's what was meant by
>the Tyler quote. That
>means the government would be
>controlled by a majority of
>the people, including the government
>treasury.

As I said, if people can vote on all the issues individually, then everyone will be in the minority on some, in the majority on others. Does the majority of people control the government treasury? I didn't realise that was the case.

To do so
>will stifle the economy, because
>lets face it, not everyone
>is a professional economist or
>knows what is actually going
>in in the economy.

And you think economists know what is really going on with the economy? BWAHAHA... Recent example: no one (as in not one single person of note) saw the Asian crisis of a few years back coming, and yet that was based on many deep structural flaws. In short, economists are full of bs.

>>That's what constitutional monarchy means.
>
>Yeah but big deal. When
>you add the word monarchy
>it makes it sound as
>if they have equal or
>even some power, which they
>dont. Hence the term
>is moot.

It's not my term, it just means that the (figure)head of state is a monarch, but that you have parliament, democracy and all that.

>
>Yeah well what do you expect,
>they're Brits....
>

See, these are the types of comments you need to avoid (at least in writing).

>Too many
>people had the idea that
>I was a black Republican
>Party member.

Well, at least you're not all bad.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 01:06 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "RE: Understand/Don't Understand"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

>I don't understand your take on
>democracy/majority rule. What is better
>than majority rule (not saying
>it's ideal)?

The rule of law. In which the popular opinion of the people at the time cannot override the laws set by the constitution.

>The reason I proposed intensive and
>easy access to decision-making processes
>through voting, is that it
>would probably increase people's desire
>to participate and inform themselves,
>as they see their wishes
>more precisely and locally executed.

Locally, maybe, but nationally? No way no how. Too many different interests at a tug of war, at least here in the States anyways.
In my opinion, easy access is what has lowered the voting population anyways. People feel, and rightfully so, that their vote doesn't individually count because so many people are already voting, especially if they know their views aren't going to pass. The problem is that people don't respect what they have been given, and they think that politics is a boring and dreadful subject. Quite frankly, it's their problem. If the issues and future of our distinguished Congress along with the Supreme Court and the presidency in the greatest country in this history of mankind doesn't interest, then whose problem is that?

>As I said, wars and coup
>d'états overthrew them, and forced
>new constitutions to be written.

Yeah. Napoleon ran a muck, you got your asses kicked by Hitler, etc....

>Again, what would better represent the
>people? As Krewcial pointed out,
>a multi-party system no doubt
>represents the people better. It's
>funny how in the UK
>and US there are mainly
>two parties, but nowadays you
>wonder which one is more
>right-wing...

Actually I ask which is more left wing. The Republicans are trying to outspend the Democrats at ever step of the way. Believe me that is not right-wing. IMO, I think the Libertarian Party is the only right-wing party out here, because we want government out of both our social and financial lives. Democrats just want social, Republican just wants financial. I say both.

>>Of course the referendum would eliminate
>>the freedom of religious practice,
>>but wouldn't it be nice
>>to know what religion they
>>would want practiced?


>Not really, cos as Krewcial pointed
>out, this referendum could never
>get off the ground. Any
>country deserving the name of
>democracy isn't about removing rights,
>but establishing some basic ones
>and upholding them for all.
>How many democracies are there
>by that definition?

But see, you and Krewcial are only basing your thoughts on assumption, as if you already know that everyone wants the same thing out of life the same way. There are alot of media, alot is still When you establish laws, you are restricting the freedom of something else, unless that law is to eliminate a previous law or act.

>>I don't like
>>the idea of one large
>>governmental body that can override
>>national soverignities. But once
>>again, I'm sure the EU
>>isn't a democratic government.
>>How are representatives chosen anyways?
>> Appointed?

>Man, the EU structure is so
>un-democratic, it's ridiculous. Basic breakdown:
>
>The European Commission: Commissioners appointed by
>national governments.
>European Parliament: deputies elected at national
>level by the people.
>Unfortunately:
>a. the Parliament is much weaker
>than the Commission
>b. nobody cares about either, and
>yet the Commission and the
>EU in general are immensely
>powerful, and make economic and
>legislative decisions that affect us
>all daily.
>I really hope we can get
>a Pan-European democratic system going.
>That would be amazing.

Amazing to watch crash and burn. With this whole European Union thing, can the countries of Europe even be called countries? They are more like states in comparison to our federal government.

>After paying close attention to your
>sheep/wolf explanation, I find it
>wholly ridiculous. The majority is
>not a wolf to the
>minority. And what do you
>define as the minority and
>majority?
>Depending on the issue, you will
>alternate camps, and in some
>cases there will be no
>clear majority. Thus if the
>people get to vote on
>all the issues, you'll "win"
>on some and "lose" on
>others. It's called compromise. So
>there's no case of oppression.

it depends on whether or not you make the majority level a mere 51%, or make it a higher level, say 75% or so. Even then, you still have a majority, and there is still a minority. I doubt if there have been elections or referendums in which an issue had 100% support.

>In a constitutional democracy, you can't
>just out laws, as everything
>has to go through a
>body to make sure new
>laws are, well, constitutional.

But it's still possible to out a provision of the constitution through democratic public opinion. That should be left to lawmakers, not the unimformed public.

>And the gun analogy is ridiculous,
>but I guess the US
>infatuation with weaponry runs deep.
>Upholding human rights will do
>a lot more for freedom
>and peace than guns ever
>will.

Actually if it wasn't for guns, we probably would have more human rights abuses than we have today. Alot of the enforcement of civil rights came from a dispute or conflict of some kind.

>Perhaps. However, what is the point
>of giving the rich back
>as much as they paid?

Because it's their money! Duh.

>This type of mentality is
>what leads to diplomats not
>paying tax on gas (which
>means 60-70% of the price
>gets dropped). I know Mercedes
>are big cars and consume
>a lot, but even diplomats
>see how ridiculous this is
>(the honest ones, at least).

I don't get your point. I dunno what diplomats you're talking about, but in the States, everyone pays taxes, no matter who ya are.

>Are you suggesting the reverse? Should
>the rich pay as much
>as the poor? Should everyone
>get out only what they
>put in?

Well lets see......everyone uses the emergency dept, fire dept, police dept, public roads, public buildings, public offices, etc......well, hell, from a logical standpoint, I don't see why not.

Now agreeably, this isn't realistic, and the rich should pay a lil more than the poor. However, when that does happen, and you're under some of the best economic times in which government is running around yelling about "surpluses", then something is wrong with that picture. The money should go back to the people that paid it, and the taxes should be lowered.

>I don't have stats, but I
>would like to know how
>much of wealth each 10-percentile
>owns. With those stats, one
>would probably see that there
>is no point in taxing
>the poor very much.
>Plus, as Krewcial mentioned, the rich
>spend a lot of time
>finding out how to avoid
>paying their taxes. Plus, the
>US government loves handing out
>corporate welfare. Poor rich people.

You talk about corporate welfare as if it is going straight into their pockets. It does into the business account. And let me reiterate that in most cases if it wasn't for corporate welfare, then people would lose their jobs. Why? Because the business isn't bringing in enough revenue, and they will have to cut back.....whether it's labor, or equipment or raising costs.

You guys been complaining about corporate welfare, without even thinking about what would happen if there wasn't any. Alot of the companies today got their start from that money, and now they make enough money that they can help fuel the economy and keep people employed with good jobs. The idea of corporate welfare doesn't stifle the economy, nor is a waste of taxpayers' money. If anything, it's in the taxpayers' best interest to make sure that all business, whether big or small, survive, seeing that the economy, whether nationally or globally, is fueled by the private sector and the number of business that are in a market means more competition, which means better products, along with more of a choice for the consumer, and more of a change to get a job for the employee.

>It's a lot, I agree. And
>everyone knows that a lot
>of that money goes to
>waste.

Exactly. So instead of allowing government to continue spending that money, why not give it back, or letting them keep it? After all, it is THEIR money.

>There seems to be a wide
>wave of tax-cutting going
>on right now (UK, US,
>France). Do you feel more
>motivated to do anything save
>consume more? Let's tax our
>environment a little bit more
>(woops, going off topic).

Not as much as it should, at least here anyways. Here, Slick Willie just vetoed the elimination of two taxes. The first one was actually a "penalty" in which a married couple would pay more taxes than if they were single. Yeah, that sure helps out families. Then the second one was an inheritance tax that Congress (mainly the Reps) was trying to eliminate for good. Clinton struck both of these down as a tax for the rich. What a basturd. Who the hell he thinks pays most of the taxes? Not to mention that tax eliminations like those help everyone. All he wants to do is keep the government budget high so he can implement his new spending programs in order to prostitute the poor vote, which is the basis of leftist politics to begin with.

>>The average
>>American, if they had to
>>pay taxes first before they
>>could get their full income,
>>would be working for the
>>government until sometime in mid
>>May.
>
>And if workers recieved the full
>value of their labour, when
>would they stop working?

I don't think you understood the statement. Let's say government at the beginning of the year came to you and said you couldn't make any money for yourself until you pay off your annual taxes and what not. Most people would be working until Mid May to pay off what they owe government.

So who exactly should control government?

>Do you? if that is the
>case, why does Unilever market
>several different brands of soap,
>cosmetics, etc.? Why is the
>agri-business so reticent about accurate
>food labelling? You think businesses
>are just like "I'm good,
>but do business with whom
>you please"? Why do stores
>put so much thought into
>how they lay out their
>products?

Well of course businesses are going to attempt to expand their influence and coverage of consumers. That's natural. But there are still plenty of other companies, whether big or small, that are alternatives for getting brand name items. You just have to look for them.

>Why should cutthroat competition be eliminated?
>A competitive atmosphere is good.
>And what about regulating working
>relations and conditions, environmental protection,
>product safety, etc.?

What do you mean why should it be eliminated? Because their are businesses out there who try to purposely sabotage their competition for their benefit. As for regulations, it depends on how much the government, along with employees, care to oversee these operations. The reason labor reform is/became popular was not because they were simply terrible working conditions, but because the conflict between labor and management, so government had no choice but to step in.

>I advocate participative democracy, where people
>can readily take decisions and
>participate in processes that will
>affect them.

Bull. That still doesn't mean you individually make decisions over your own life, that just means you're allowing the majority of the people to make those decisions for you. The problem is when you let government and popular opinion affect your life. Less government, not more.

>As I said, if people can
>vote on all the issues
>individually, then everyone will be
>in the minority on some,
>in the majority on others.
>Does the majority of people
>control the government treasury? I
>didn't realise that was the
>case.

But to have people coming to the ballot box on every issue is totally unrealistic. People would have to go to the ballot box virtually every day. And if you have democratic opinion on how taxpayers' money is spent, then yes a majority does have control over the government treasury.

>And you think economists know what
>is really going on with
>the economy? BWAHAHA... Recent example:
>no one (as in not
>one single person of note)
>saw the Asian crisis of
>a few years back coming,
>and yet that was based
>on many deep structural flaws.
>In short, economists are full
>of bs.

They know more than regular people do. That doesn't mean they are going to always forecast future direction of the economies. They can change unpredictably like the weather, but does that mean that meteorologists are a waste of time too? They are economists, not psychics.

>>Yeah well what do you expect,
>>they're Brits....
>>
>
>See, these are the types of
>comments you need to avoid
>(at least in writing).

Blah. I love my sarcastic-filled comments. Nothing wrong with them. If people don't like them they'll get over it.

>>Too many
>>people had the idea that
>>I was a black Republican
>>Party member.
>
>Well, at least you're not all
>bad.

Actually most would consider us to be worse than the Republicans, especially in the area of economic growth and size of government. However we are better in the areas of societal issues, because we believe government shouldn't be concerned in the individual lives of people.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
uncle_clarence_tomas

Sun Aug-27-00 12:28 PM

  
18. "get your @$$ home son !"
In response to Reply # 11


          

Dear nephew,

Stop playing with these evil socialists !

Get your butt home NOW !


Your Favourite Uncle,

Clarence


10 reasons why Expertise should run for President:

1. "I cannot understand for the life of me why are you Okayplayers supporting such an illogical, idiotic, extremist party like the Green Party."

2. "I can get sick of breathing, but if I don't, I'll die."

3. "Well duh, the things taught in School are designed to reflect the society we are in. It's a school, not a brain washing scheme."

4. "Awwww poor thing....did I offend you? That's a shame. If you think I'm offensive, wait until reality hits you. You'll think I was Barney ... Hence, you can take your toys and go home."

5. "The economy can only do as well as it's highest achievers. If they aren't succeeding, then that means the lowest ones aren't either. That's what makes them low."

6. "WAKE UP!!! I cannot actually FATHOM meeting any of you dimwits that actually believe this is a good idea. You're actually willing to allow governemt to steal your money. There are actually more life-forms like you guys in this world???"

7. "There is NO genocide and no exploitation going on in this country."

8. "Nader doesn't DESERVE a fair chance (in the elections); this mess is nothing more than some socialist ploy."

9. "It's not big businesses' job to care."

10. "It's all about ME!"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Fri Aug-25-00 01:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "RE: Sure..."
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

>A democracy is a form of
>government in which people are
>allowed to vote on representatives,
>government officials, and often vote
>on certain government issues (referendums)
>with no regard to the
>laws made prior.

Of all democracies existing today, only a few have referendums (best known example is the Swiss canton system). So people don't have referendums very often in reality. For a couple of reasons : as you've said yourself a while ago, it's impossible to organise referenda every hour of every day for every imaginable subject.
Plus having a referendum doesn't automatically mean that a law will be changed. Sometimes it just confirms existing legislation, or handles how an existing law should be applied in actual life.

But my biggest problem is with you saying 'with no regard to the laws made prior'. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but do you actually see legislation as some static thing, that should never change ?
Law has always been dynamic. One of the functions of legislation is to structure society and the way people interact. Which automatically means it has to be based on reality to be effective (how else are you gonna fight today's crime with early 1930's laws ?).

>The
>system is quite simple; majority
>rules.

In a democracy, majority doesn't 'rule', but ALL people have an equal input.

In your ideal society, minority rules. Please explain how a minority ruling is more legitimate than a majority ruling ? Does Apartheid ring a bell ?

>A constitutional republic is a form
>of government in which representatives
>are elected democratically, but the
>laws that are made by
>the representatives cannot go above
>the chief law document of
>the land (the Constitution).
>All laws must be written
>in accordance to that document,
>or they are null and
>void. A republic puts
>the law above people.

What about Belgium (and lots of other countries, that are NOT republics) ? Things are far from a democracy here (representative at best), but all laws voted here have to be in accordance to the constitution, or they are automatically destroyed (we have a special court here checking this specific point).
As mke put it, 'republic' has nothing to do with democracy or dictatorships. You can have democratic republics and tirannic ones.

>You see, the problem with democracy
>is that the majority wins,
>and do not take the
>minority's views into consideration, which
>can lead to oppression.

As I already said : in a democracy where all people have equal access to power, there's no such thing as a winning majority not taking the minority's views into consideration.

How exactly do you define 'majority' & 'minority' ? Everything higher than 50% is a majority ?
Never heard of a 2/3 majority ?

All you know is the US two-party system. Most European countries have at least 5-6 big parties. In reality there's not one big winner, but a number of small minorities who have to work together. And getting to that 66% majority (in both Parliament and Senate here in Belgium) means having to work together. Which means incorporating minorities' points of view.

You prefer a 12% minority which holds most of the resources, and represents only one narrow set of values to decide what's best for the other 88% ?

>For example, suppose this country
>was to go entirely democratic,
>and Christians get a national
>referendum on next year's ballot
>voting on whether or not
>to make the US a
>Christian state. Of course,
>the Constitution has already said
>no government will respect or
>honor a religion. However,
>in a democracy majority rules,
>and as long as they
>have 51% of the vote,
>this will be a Christian
>state. It's the same
>way with almost every issue.

You have a very twisted view on democracy. No reasonable person will accept the situation you just described. If your constitution says religion and government should be separated, a simple referendum can't change that. To make this possible, would mean changing that specific constitution article first (which is possible here, but takes several years of sustained efforts), which means it will be discussed and voted democratically, and people being informed properly of the pros and cons of that change.

What you just described is a farce, and has nothing to do with democracy.

>As for my quote, the logic
>is quite simple.....the majority of
>the people understand that they
>can use the elections to
>elect representatives that will give
>them "assistance" in the form
>of government programs, tax credits,
>tax writeoffs and such.
>But the problem is, that
>someone has to pay for
>it, which of course is
>a minority of the people
>(the rich). What will
>happen is that most of
>the taxes will be paid
>by a minority of the
>people, as it is today.
> Sooner or later, the
>rich are going to get
>tired of paying the majority's
>taxes and something has to
>give.

BS. So those few rich people pay for all other people's benefits or 'assistance' ?

Then how come income in the US has gone up the past 10 years, only for the rich, while middleclass and poor wages have remained at the same level (with higher prices this means their money is worth less now) ? The how come your country has so many billionaires and -at the very same time- so many poor ? Cos all those poor people are lazy bums, scared to work ?

The rich don't pay other people's taxes. Your despised 'majority' pays a lot more taxes, while that 'poor' rich minority has access to lawyers, financial constructions and investments to escape taxes.

>the
>House of Commons is straight
>democracy, in which the Prime
>Minister is appointed by the
>majority party from the House
>of Commons.

Calling that 'straight' democracy shows how far to the right you are.

>"A democracy cannot exist as a
>permanent form of government. It
>can only exist until the
>voters discover that they can
>vote themselves money from the
>public treasury. From that moment
>on the majority always votes
>for the candidates promising the
>most money from the public
>treasury, with the result that
>a democracy always collapses over
>loose fiscal policy followed by
>a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

I'm trying to find out more about this man now. Wouldn't be surprised if it's one of those revisionists justifying oppression and neocolonialism. His-story...
His quote expresses a deep mistrust and ridiculisation of people's capacity to think for themselves, and reduces people to money hungry egoists. Therefor I can't take this serious, especially since he doesn't substantiate anything he says. It's just an opinion, not scientifical evidence after decent research.

>"In general the art of government
>consists in taking as much
>money as possible from one
>class of citizens to give
>to the other." -Voltaire

Kinda strange to quote Voltaire when you have no notion whatsoever of France's current political system, nor its past ones.
Voltaire wrote this in a specific context (the Ancien Regime = privileges and power for a rich and religious oppressive upperclass minority, just before the French Revolution) . You use a very specific quote that applies to a situation from over 200 years ago to generalise about today's governments ?
I'm wondering if you've read more of Voltaire's work, and if you'd agree with the rest of what he says ...

>"The assumption that spending more of
>the taxpayer's money will make
>things better has survived all
>kinds of evidence that it
>has made things worse. The
>black family- which survived slavery,
>discrimination, poverty, wars and
>depressions- began to come apart
>as the federal government moved
>in with its well-financed programs
>to "help." - Thomas Sowell

HOW has taxpayer's money been used so far ? Mainly to benefit private corporate interests.
Not the spending of taxpayer's money is the problem, but the way it's being used.


krewcialist


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sat Aug-26-00 06:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: Sure..."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

>Of all democracies existing today,
>only a few have referendums
>(best known example is the
>Swiss canton system).

Actually the US does, but only at the state and local levels.

So
>people don't have referendums very
>often in reality. For
>a couple of reasons :
>as you've said yourself a
>while ago, it's impossible to
>organise referenda every hour of
>every day for every imaginable
>subject.
>Plus having a referendum doesn't automatically
>mean that a law will
>be changed. Sometimes it
>just confirms existing legislation, or
>handles how an existing law
>should be applied in actual
>life.

That doesn't make sense. If a referendum is only going to be used as a survey poll, then why even have it? How does it confirm existing legislation? Are the representatives trying to find out if the law is popular with the people? If so, that shouldn't have much concern. The concern should be does it give everyone equal protection under the law and stops fraud and corruption.

>But my biggest problem is with
>you saying 'with no regard
>to the laws made prior'.
> Maybe I misinterpreted what
>you said, but do you
>actually see legislation as some
>static thing, that should never
>change ?

Of course not. That's why the constitution has amendments. However it shouldn't be changed because of mere popular opinion either.

>Law has always been dynamic.
>One of the functions of
>legislation is to structure society
>and the way people interact.
> Which automatically means it
>has to be based on
>reality to be effective (how
>else are you gonna fight
>today's crime with early 1930's
>laws ?).

Of course the technicalities of law enforcement should change along with modern times, but the ideals and principles of law shouldn't. Here, the principles are based from day one, in which the people should be protected from criminal activity and government.Times change, but that doesn't mean standards should.

>In a democracy, majority doesn't 'rule',
> but ALL people have
>an equal input.

Ha. Right. They might have input, as in casting a vote, but that doesn't mean that it individually makes a difference.

>In your ideal society, minority rules.
> Please explain how a
>minority ruling is more legitimate
>than a majority ruling ?
> Does Apartheid ring a
>bell ?

I never said minority should rule over a majority. I said that no person or group of people should be over the law of the land. When you have democracy, you have a group of people in control of the direction of the government. Therefore, their will is the law.

>What about Belgium (and lots of
>other countries, that are NOT
>republics) ? Things are
>far from a democracy here
>(representative at best), but all
>laws voted here have to
>be in accordance to the
>constitution, or they are automatically
>destroyed (we have a special
>court here checking this specific
>point).

We do too. It's called the Supreme Court.

>As mke put it, 'republic' has
>nothing to do with democracy
>or dictatorships. You can
>have democratic republics and tirannic
>ones.

You're right. In any government if you have corrupt people in it the country can go under the tubes. That's why there were so many atrocities under the US government in it's earlier history because they did what they wanted, and the people didn't care. Now it's a different story, and we hold government officials accountable more than ever through our "checks and balances" system. That way, one branch of government can be more powerful than the other.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin said rebellion was necessary every once in a while to make sure the government didn't become too powerful and to keep it in it's place. Now like I mentioned to mke, there has only been 27 amendments. However, the majority of those amendments not only changed the look of this country, but the whole world. It's also those amendments that has kept the United States from going into total chaos (although it has twice already. Once in the 1860's and again in the 1960's)

>As I already said : in
>a democracy where all people
>have equal access to power,
>there's no such thing as
>a winning majority not taking
>the minority's views into consideration.

But how do they have equal access to power? If they vote, and they lose the vote, then that means they lose on that issue.

>How exactly do you define 'majority'
>& 'minority' ?
>Everything higher than 50% is
>a majority ?
>Never heard of a 2/3 majority
>?

*LOL* A 2/3rds majority is 66%. Isn't 66% > 50%?

>All you know is the US
>two-party system. Most European
>countries have at least 5-6
>big parties. In reality there's
>not one big winner, but
>a number of small minorities
>who have to work together.
> And getting to that
>66% majority (in both Parliament
>and Senate here in Belgium)
>means having to work together.
> Which means incorporating minorities'
>points of view.

Doesn't matter. They still come to a majority conclusion. And that still means there is a minority. All that means is that they compromised on their differing issues, that doesn't mean that gives equal coverage.

>You prefer a 12% minority which
>holds most of the resources,
>and represents only one narrow
>set of values to decide
>what's best for the other
>88% ?

I never said anything like that at all. I prefer laws to be made by representatives, that actually know the district they are representing and can actually make decisions based on the good of the area. But, those laws have to be in accordance to the previous laws and principles set, and not go merely on popular opinion, but intellectual reasoning.

>You have a very twisted view
>on democracy. No reasonable
>person will accept the situation
>you just described. If
>your constitution says religion and
>government should be separated, a
>simple referendum can't change that.

Oh they don't? Obviously you haven't heard of Iran, Egypt, Israel, The Vatican, Syria, or any of the other countries that founded and based their governments on religious principles. But then again, I guess they aren't reasonable.

> To make this possible,
>would mean changing that specific
>constitution article first (which is
>possible here, but takes several
>years of sustained efforts), which
>means it will be discussed
>and voted democratically, and people
>being informed properly of the
>pros and cons of that
>change.

You said something key right there....people being informed properly of the pros and cons. Let's be realistic, not everyone has an unbiased opinion on things, even government officials. It's just like an election campaign, people are going to lie and stretch the truth about certain things to put themselves and their causes under a different light. So how, pretell, do you expect this "proper" information to come to pass, and do you actually think because the information is there everyone will believe it or even read/watch/listen to it?

>What you just described is a
>farce, and has nothing to
>do with democracy.

You're right about one thing. It is a farce. It has everything to do with democracy.

>BS. So those few rich
>people pay for all other
>people's benefits or 'assistance' ?

Not all, but a majority. Top 1% pays 33% of the nations taxes.

>Then how come income in the
>US has gone up the
>past 10 years, only for
>the rich, while middleclass and
>poor wages have remained at
>the same level (with higher
>prices this means their money
>is worth less now) ?
> The how come your
>country has so many billionaires
>and -at the very same
>time- so many poor ?
> Cos all those poor
>people are lazy bums, scared
>to work ?

This "wage gap" is common sense reasoning that you leftists blow out of proportion to scare the public.

The gap is quite simple. When you have two things, in which one is stalemated and one is rising, the distance between the two is going to going to get bigger and bigger. Therefore, the rich, as they are in the business of making money and improving their lifestyle, are going to get richer, and the poor, in which they can't go no lower because they are at the bottom, are going to stay where they are.

You see, this would be a problem if there wasn't any opportunity. Just because one person is rich this year, and another person is poor this year, doesn't mean that will be the case next year. It switches back and forth all the time. Hell, just look at the music industry. Most vocal artists are not rich when they first start off, but they gain money through their music and selling of their albums, and make tons of money. Plenty of people in this country were born poor but worked their asses off to get to the top of the economic food chain. Despite what you believe, it wasn't because they won life's lottery, it was because they were given an opportunity, and they took it to the moon.

So, going back to the economic levels, if people are given opportunities to succeed, and opportunity to succeed is out there more than it ever has in the history of this world, and they achieve, then that means they will get richer. That doesn't mean that someone else will get poorer, it just means they went down a notch in the economic percentiles. There are more millionaires and financially independent people than there has ever been in this world at any time in history. Therefore, if people are making money, and are getting richer, then that means the average amount of wealth the rich has is going to increase, while the ones that are poor are going to stay where they always been.

It doesn't matter if your capitalist, socialist, communist, or whatever, the world's economy is based on the highest achievers. Therefore, if the wage gap is getting bigger, and more people are making fortunes, then that is a GOOD thing, because they are going to bring the standard of living up with them. On the contrary, if less people are making money, and the gap narrows, then that's a bad thing. If the high achievers are struggling to make it, then what you think the lower ones are doing? Absolutely nothing.

Remember this, in this world no matter what form of government or whatever, there are always going to be ones that have and there are always going to be ones that don't have. That's just how it is. However, that doesn't mean that the ones that don't have now, can't have later. It's about desire, determination, and ability. If you don't have those, you aren't going to do much.

>The rich don't pay other people's
>taxes. Your despised 'majority'
>pays a lot more taxes,
>while that 'poor' rich minority
>has access to lawyers, financial
>constructions and investments to escape
>taxes.

*sighs* Just think about it for a minute. If the rich didn't have the lawyers or financial consultants (I think that's what you were trying to say) to help them find tax writeoffs and the like, then they would be paying even more than what they are already paying. Like I said, alot of people pay almost 40% of their income in taxes already.

>Calling that 'straight' democracy shows how
>far to the right you
>are.

How? The House of Commons isn't considered as a prototype of a democratic government? Then what is?

>I'm trying to find out more
>about this man now.
>Wouldn't be surprised if it's
>one of those revisionists justifying
>oppression and neocolonialism. His-story...

The truth is no less of a truth even if it comes out of the mouth of a liar. Don't dispute his life, dispute his words.

>His quote expresses a deep mistrust
>and ridiculisation of people's capacity
>to think for themselves, and
>reduces people to money hungry
>egoists. Therefor I can't
>take this serious, especially since
>he doesn't substantiate anything he
>says. It's just an
>opinion, not scientifical evidence after
>decent research.

DUH a quote is an opinion! It's not supposed to be scientific research!
As for mistrust, that's what the US was founded on, mistrust for government's ability to control the lives of people. The government is ran by people, therefore actions must be taken to ensure people in power have no way to abuse that power without retribution. You can call it mistrust, I call it protection. If you think everyone that has authority is or will be a straight arrow, then you're living in a dream world. It's human nature to look after yourself before others.

>Kinda strange to quote Voltaire when
>you have no notion whatsoever
>of France's current political system,
> nor its past ones.
>Voltaire wrote this in a specific
>context (the Ancien Regime =
>privileges and power for a
>rich and religious oppressive upperclass
>minority, just before the French
>Revolution) . You use
>a very specific quote that
>applies to a situation from
>over 200 years ago to
>generalise about today's governments ?

Who cares where Voltaire is from or what he did or whatever? It's a quote and it speaks true even today, whether governments make the rich richer or whether they give the money to the poor. That's why I advocate less government.

>I'm wondering if you've read more
>of Voltaire's work, and if
>you'd agree with the rest
>of what he says ...

Probably. Probably not. What's the point?

>>"The assumption that spending more of
>>the taxpayer's money will make
>>things better has survived all
>>kinds of evidence that it
>>has made things worse. The
>>black family- which survived slavery,
>>discrimination, poverty, wars and
>>depressions- began to come apart
>>as the federal government moved
>>in with its well-financed programs
>>to "help." - Thomas Sowell

>HOW has taxpayer's money been used
>so far ? Mainly
>to benefit private corporate interests.

So? Those private corporate interests is why you're living the life you are now, whining and complaining on a computer. What, you actually think government did it? Ha!

>Not the spending of taxpayer's money
>is the problem, but the
>way it's being used.

Half right and half wrong. Taxpayer's money should only be used to provide government enough finanically to perform the basic functions it's supposed to, as in fixing roads and public buildings, enacting and enforcing laws, and compensation of representatives and government officials. The rest of that stuff is wasting taxpayer's money along with being the problem.

Besides you missed the whole point of Sowell's quote. The point is that the black community never needed governemnt to come in with its welfare programs and "help" us. If anything, they actually hurt and stifiled it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 03:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "blahblahblah"
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

>I never said minority should rule
>over a majority. I
>said that no person or
>group of people should be
>over the law of the
>land. When you have
>democracy, you have a group
>of people in control of
>the direction of the government.
>Therefore, their will is
>the law.

By saying that today's system is OK with you, you are defending a system where a minority controls a majority.

>>As I already said : in
>>a democracy where all people
>>have equal access to power,
>>there's no such thing as
>>a winning majority not taking
>>the minority's views into consideration.
>
>But how do they have equal
>access to power? If
>they vote, and they lose
>the vote, then that means
>they lose on that issue.

What if they don't get to vote at all ?
What if they loose every time, without any input ?

>>How exactly do you define 'majority'
>>& 'minority' ?
>>Everything higher than 50% is
>>a majority ?
>>Never heard of a 2/3 majority
>>?
>
>*LOL* A 2/3rds majority is 66%. Isn't 66% > 50%?

You missed my point. You gave an example where a 51% majority would be able to change something as fundamental as a country's constitution.
For such essential/important issues that affect a constitution, people can agree on a 75% or even higher percentage majority needed to make a change.

>I prefer
>laws to be made by
>representatives, that actually know the
>district they are representing and
>can actually make decisions based
>on the good of the
>area.

How can you make sure they know the district they are representing ? How have they been chosen or picked to represent their district ? What is the 'good' of the area ?

You either have these people elected (which you don't like, cos it's a majority who will decide), or either picked (by who, based on what ?).

How high is the risk of people being bribed to give the job to somebody in that last scenario ?

>But, those laws
>have to be in accordance
>to the previous laws and
>principles set, and not go
>merely on popular opinion, but
>intellectual reasoning.

I never said law should fluctuate every single week, based on some superficial poll. I take democracy very serious.
What you don't seem to or recognize is that a country's law should also be supported by it's population.

Are you relying solely on the judgement of technocrats ? So only judges or lawyers are entitled to make up laws and decide what's good for a country ? What gives them that right ? The fact that they had access to the money needed to get a diploma ?

>>You have a very twisted view
>>on democracy. No reasonable
>>person will accept the situation
>>you just described. If
>>your constitution says religion and
>>government should be separated, a
>>simple referendum can't change that.
>
>Oh they don't? Obviously you
>haven't heard of Iran, Egypt,
>Israel, The Vatican, Syria, or
>any of the other countries
>that founded and based their
>governments on religious principles.
>But then again, I guess
>they aren't reasonable.

My remark was a general one. It didn't apply just to religion. I was referring to your suggestion that a 51% majority can change a country's constitution.

Now, about your remark : if a majority of the people want a religion based state/government, that's their decision. I wouldn't want to live there, since I'm not religious, but I don't have a problem with people choosing to have religion all over their country.
What's wrong with that if it's people's choice ? It may be different from what you want, but that doesn't make it bad or inferior.

>You said something key right there....people
>being informed properly of the
>pros and cons. Let's
>be realistic, not everyone has
>an unbiased opinion on things,
>even government officials. It's
>just like an election campaign,
>people are going to lie
>and stretch the truth about
>certain things to put themselves
>and their causes under a
>different light. So how,
>pretell, do you expect this
>"proper" information to come to
>pass, and do you actually
>think because the information is
>there everyone will believe it
>or even read/watch/listen to it?

No, but I think what you propose is only taking us further away from that. How do you expect companies to give you unbiased information, when they're constantly concerned about the profit they make, and they'll adapt their info and the way it's marketed to serve that purpose ?

>>BS. So those few rich
>>people pay for all other
>>people's benefits or 'assistance' ?
>
>Not all, but a majority.
>Top 1% pays 33% of
>the nations taxes.

Could this be becos that top 1% has 33% of the nations income ?

>This "wage gap" is common sense
>reasoning that you leftists blow
>out of proportion to scare
>the public.

Haha.

>The gap is quite simple.
>When you have two things,
>in which one is stalemated
>and one is rising, the
>distance between the two is
>going to going to get
>bigger and bigger. Therefore,
>the rich, as they are
>in the business of making
>money and improving their lifestyle,
>are going to get richer,
>and the poor, in which
>they can't go no lower
>because they are at the
>bottom, are going to stay
>where they are.
>
>You see, this would be a
>problem if there wasn't any
>opportunity. Just because one
>person is rich this year,
>and another person is poor
>this year, doesn't mean that
>will be the case next
>year. It switches back
>and forth all the time.

>Hell, just look at
>the music industry. Most
>vocal artists are not rich
>when they first start off,
>but they gain money through
>their music and selling of
>their albums, and make tons
>of money.

Bwaahahahaha. I don't know if any of the okayartists check this board regularly, but I'd looooooooove to hear what they think about this.

The music industry (and especially the majors) is the prime example of exploitation and modern day slavery.

>Plenty of
>people in this country were
>born poor but worked their
>asses off to get to
>the top of the economic
>food chain. Despite what
>you believe, it wasn't because
>they won life's lottery, it
>was because they were given
>an opportunity, and they took
>it to the moon.

I'm proposing a system where everyone has an opportunity, not just a few.

And the opportunity you talk about simply doesn't exist, unless you're willing to sell yourself and compromise.

You've said you don't believe in the existence of glassceilings, sexism or racism as barriers to those opportunities, so I won't waste any time in telling you again.

Just make sure you wear a helmet for when you hit it.

>So, going back to the economic
>levels, if people are given
>opportunities to succeed, and opportunity
>to succeed is out there
>more than it ever has
>in the history of this
>world, and they achieve, then
>that means they will get
>richer. That doesn't mean
>that someone else will get
>poorer, it just means they
>went down a notch in
>the economic percentiles. There
>are more millionaires and financially
>independent people than there has
>ever been in this world
>at any time in history.

Yep. And since you don't give a eff about the world outside your comfortable surroundings, you don't notice that it is only possible through and because of the exploitation of other people, both inside the US and even more so outside, from Central and South America, to Africa and Asia.

>the
>world's economy is based on
>the highest achievers. Therefore,
>if the wage gap is
>getting bigger, and more people
>are making fortunes, then that
>is a GOOD thing, because
>they are going to bring
>the standard of living up
>with them. On the
>contrary, if less people are
>making money, and the gap
>narrows, then that's a bad
>thing. If the high
>achievers are struggling to make
>it, then what you think
>the lower ones are doing?
>Absolutely nothing.

BS. If the poorer people have more and better access to education, jobs, etcetera, that means more people making more money. Which also happens to narrow the gap. Or is that option blasphemy to you ?

>Remember this, in this world no
>matter what form of government
>or whatever, there are always
>going to be ones that
>have and there are always
>going to be ones that
>don't have. That's just
>how it is.

That's just how it is.

Interesting.

You got infected with AIDS at a PRIVATE hospital, cos they don't care about checking the blood from donors (controlling that cuts profits, see) ?
Too bad man, "that's just how it is".

>However,
>that doesn't mean that the
>ones that don't have now,
>can't have later. It's
>about desire, determination, and ability.
>If you don't have
>those, you aren't going to
>do much.

Oh, it's that simple ? Sorry, forgot you don't acknowledge the existence of racism, sexism, unfair world trade (understatement of the year)

What about Softenon victims ?
What about people who lost a leg when their unsafe General Motors car exploded ?

Has little to do with your satanic government, but everything with private companies who got away with criminal activities becos of lack of democratic control.

But they have less 'possibilities' to participate 100% in your capitalist economy, cos of medical reasons (and this is just one example).

Too bad, "that's just how it is" I guess ?

>*sighs* Just think about it
>for a minute. If
>the rich didn't have the
>lawyers or financial consultants (I
>think that's what you were
>trying to say) to help
>them find tax writeoffs and
>the like, then they would
>be paying even more than
>what they are already paying.

So it's okay for people who can't afford financial consultants to pay more taxes ?

I thought you were pro equal opportunities ? Shouldn't everyone have access to financial consultants then ?

>>Calling that 'straight' democracy shows how
>>far to the right you
>>are.
>
>How? The House of Commons
>isn't considered as a prototype
>of a democratic government?
>Then what is?

All your posts so far have shown your inability to even try to understand what democracy means.

The House Of Commons is far from democracy, ask any UK okayplayer.

>The truth is no less of
>a truth even if it
>comes out of the mouth
>of a liar. Don't
>dispute his life, dispute his
>words.

Both are correlated. If someone is being paid to say something specific, or rewarded in other ways (job, status, prestige) that is important information. A message is never 'just the message'. Follow any communication course for starters and that's the first thing you'll learn.

If the Made Men get 5 mics in a Source magazine, where the editor is their manager, that is relevant information (which is part of the message) and it changes one's perception of it.

>You can call it
>mistrust, I call it protection.
>If you think everyone
>that has authority is or
>will be a straight arrow,
>then you're living in a
>dream world. It's human
>nature to look after yourself
>before others.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not. It is to you, and you believe it to be true for everyone (cos that makes the world an easy-to-understand place where you have winners and losers, aka people who work and lazy bastards who deserve to be poor since they don't work hard enough).

The world is larger than the US. That may be hard to accept for you, but I presume you've at least seen a map ONCE in your life, where there's more continents and countries than yours.

You don't have to care about people outside your cosy little cocoon, but then be consequent and don't try to talk like as if you know them and or their lives and experiences.

>>Kinda strange to quote Voltaire when
>>you have no notion whatsoever
>>of France's current political system,
>> nor its past ones.
>>Voltaire wrote this in a specific
>>context (the Ancien Regime =
>>privileges and power for a
>>rich and religious oppressive upperclass
>>minority, just before the French
>>Revolution) . You use
>>a very specific quote that
>>applies to a situation from
>>over 200 years ago to
>>generalise about today's governments ?
>
>Who cares where Voltaire is from
>or what he did or
>whatever? It's a quote
>and it speaks true even
>today, whether governments make the
>rich richer or whether they
>give the money to the
>poor. That's why I
>advocate less government.

"Women are underdeveloped dogs". Who cares who said it and when (probably some Neanderthaler), cos it's a quote and speaks true even today ?

Ever considered stand up comedy ?

And people say Eminem is shocking ...

>>I'm wondering if you've read more
>>of Voltaire's work, and if
>>you'd agree with the rest
>>of what he says ...
>
>Probably. Probably not. What's
>the point?

The point is that you randomly use quotes to legitimate your fascism, but neglect that quotes are a part of a paper/book/philosophy and can not be seen apart from that. Every thing these same people you quote may have said that contradicts with your view, is simply ignored.

Easy.

>So? Those private corporate interests
>is why you're living the
>life you are now, whining
>and complaining on a computer.

Oh, so we all should settle, and be grateful and accept the exploitation and oppression just cos we got a comp ? Bwahahaha. Never heard of Robin Hood ?

>Half right and half wrong.
>Taxpayer's money should only be
>used to provide government enough
>finanically to perform the basic
>functions it's supposed to, as
>in fixing roads and public
>buildings, enacting and enforcing laws,
>and compensation of representatives and
>government officials. The rest
>of that stuff is wasting
>taxpayer's money along with being
>the problem.

If that's the case, my government here needs to be elected properly, cut off all unofficial ties with corporations who promise them privileges in exchange for changing legislation in their advantage, and get way more money to be able to control companies (which is the enacting and enforcing of laws you talk about).

>Besides you missed the whole point
>of Sowell's quote. The
>point is that the black
>community never needed governemnt to
>come in with its welfare
>programs and "help" us.
>If anything, they actually hurt
>and stifiled it.

Maybe the government wasn't helping at all. Your conclusion is that all help and welfare should consequently be stopped, instead of being organised properly, with input of the people themselves.

If you're greedy, just say so, don't use other people's random quotes to mask it.


krewcialist

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 09:09 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: blahblahblah"
In response to Reply # 13


  

          

>>I never said minority should rule
>>over a majority. I
>>said that no person or
>>group of people should be
>>over the law of the
>>land. When you have
>>democracy, you have a group
>>of people in control of
>>the direction of the government.
>>Therefore, their will is
>>the law.
>
>By saying that today's system is
>OK with you, you are
>defending a system where a
>minority controls a majority.

Well if that minority consists of a written document, then so be it.

>What if they don't get to
>vote at all ?
>What if they loose every time,
>without any input ?

Representation is still better than the fickle means of popular opinion. That way there can be some kind of constant rather than using the fickle means of mere societal thoughts.

>You missed my point. You
>gave an example where a
>51% majority would be able
>to change something as fundamental
>as a country's constitution.
>For such essential/important issues that affect
>a constitution, people can agree
>on a 75% or even
>higher percentage majority needed to
>make a change.

That's a little better, but there is still no guarantee that people will be informed and know what is going on, nor will people act in an unbiased manner. That's why laws are written, to make sure there is some sort of standard that everyone must follow and not simply because they say they will do so. There is no promise that everyone will give things equal consideration and/or look out for their best interests.

>How can you make sure they
>know the district they are
>representing ? How have
>they been chosen or picked
>to represent their district ?
> What is the 'good'
>of the area ?
>You either have these people elected
>(which you don't like, cos
>it's a majority who will
>decide), or either picked (by
>who, based on what ?).

I never said I didn't believe in democratic elections. (representation) I said I had a problem with the issues and problems of society being decided by popular opinion. I am not fond of appointees.

Actually, I recall you having a problem with representation previously.

>I never said law should fluctuate
>every single week, based on
>some superficial poll. I
>take democracy very serious.
>What you don't seem to or
>recognize is that a country's
>law should also be supported
>by it's population.

What about the time period of the 1960's? You think the population supported civil rights, the Vietnam War, abortions, desegregation, and the like? No. But because the law said they had to, they had no choice. If it wasn't for the law being over the people none of those things, along with others, would have come to pass.

>Are you relying solely on the
>judgement of technocrats ?
>So only judges or lawyers
>are entitled to make up
>laws and decide what's good
>for a country ?
>What gives them that right
>? The fact that
>they had access to the
>money needed to get a
>diploma ?

Democratic election (representation). They are chosen by the people to handle the matters of government, instead of putting that job directly into the hands of the people, because they simply feel he is the best person for the job. That diploma you mentioned makes the public feel more comfortable with their decision.

>Now, about your remark : if
>a majority of the people
>want a religion based state/government,
>that's their decision. I
>wouldn't want to live there,
>since I'm not religious, but
>I don't have a problem
>with people choosing to have
>religion all over their country.

I do, because what if I lived in that country and I am part of the minority that doesn't want that religion implemented into government? If the case you just mentioned happened 200 years ago, the US would no doubt be a Protestant state. A major reason immigrants came to this country was from religious and political persecution. You're telling me that okay to use government, the only group of any kind thats legally able to use force upon you, to be influenced by government. If they want to pray in their own homes, fine, but don't bring it to the capitol steps.

>What's wrong with that if it's
>people's choice ? It
>may be different from what
>you want, but that doesn't
>make it bad or inferior.

Why, when people have the freedom to practice a choice in the comfort of their own home or private organization, have to have government enforce it? When you do that, you take away freedoms from someone else. Tell me what gives a Muslim population majority to prevent a Christian minority from freedom of association?

>>You said something key right there....people
>>being informed properly of the
>>pros and cons. Let's
>>be realistic, not everyone has
>>an unbiased opinion on things,
>>even government officials. It's
>>just like an election campaign,
>>people are going to lie
>>and stretch the truth about
>>certain things to put themselves
>>and their causes under a
>>different light. So how,
>>pretell, do you expect this
>>"proper" information to come to
>>pass, and do you actually
>>think because the information is
>>there everyone will believe it
>>or even read/watch/listen to it?
>
>No, but I think what you
>propose is only taking us
>further away from that.
>How do you expect companies
>to give you unbiased information,
>when they're constantly concerned about
>the profit they make, and
>they'll adapt their info and
>the way it's marketed to
>serve that purpose ?

It's simple. I don't. I try to find out for myself. If I don't find out, it wasn't meant for me to find out. I think that is better than pretending you can accurately inform people of things they either will never learn or desire to learn.
>Could this be becos that top
>1% has 33% of the
>nations income ?

Nope. Only 17%. So therefore they are paying double the taxes than what they are responsible for based on income.

>>The gap is quite simple.
>>When you have two things,
>>in which one is stalemated
>>and one is rising, the
>>distance between the two is
>>going to going to get
>>bigger and bigger. Therefore,
>>the rich, as they are
>>in the business of making
>>money and improving their lifestyle,
>>are going to get richer,
>>and the poor, in which
>>they can't go no lower
>>because they are at the
>>bottom, are going to stay
>>where they are.
>>
>>You see, this would be a
>>problem if there wasn't any
>>opportunity. Just because one
>>person is rich this year,
>>and another person is poor
>>this year, doesn't mean that
>>will be the case next
>>year. It switches back
>>and forth all the time.
>
>>Hell, just look at
>>the music industry. Most
>>vocal artists are not rich
>>when they first start off,
>>but they gain money through
>>their music and selling of
>>their albums, and make tons
>>of money.
>
>Bwaahahahaha. I don't know if
>any of the okayartists check
>this board regularly, but I'd
>looooooooove to hear what they
>think about this.

Who cares? They can complain all they want, but I doubt if they are going around hungry, especially ones with recording contracts and albums out. It's funny how celebrities complain about the "plight of the world" when they are part of the group that is taking advantage of the system that they are against.

>The music industry (and especially the
>majors) is the prime example
>of exploitation and modern day
>slavery.

Great hyperbole. Where's the charity organization in which I can contribute to?? Save the Musicians? Yes save these musicians from the evil music industry that has made alot of them 6 figure and 7 figure salaries. Yes, my heart truly bleeds for them. Shame on Bad Boy Entertainment and Cash Money Records!

>I'm proposing a system where everyone
>has an opportunity, not just
>a few.

What you mean few? Everyone does have an opportunity. But of course, it isn't going to be just handed to them on a silver platter. They have to look for it, and then earn it.

>And the opportunity you talk about
>simply doesn't exist, unless you're
>willing to sell yourself and
>compromise.

Oh give me a break. You need to get a clue, man. Not everyone kisses ass to get to the top of their profession, not everyone has to compromise on their beliefs in order to achieve prosperity. Your assumption that everyone with money are nothing but asskissers and exploiters is becoming tired.

>You've said you don't believe in
>the existence of glassceilings, sexism
>or racism as barriers to
>those opportunities, so I won't
>waste any time in telling
>you again.

I never said that. I said glass ceilings are made lower through socialism, and discrimination, whether by gender or race, is made stronger though that ideal. I also said that glass ceilings, racism, and sexism can be overcame however. It's all about the desire you want to overcome them.

>Yep. And since you don't
>give a eff about the
>world outside your comfortable surroundings,
>you don't notice that it
>is only possible through and
>because of the exploitation of
>other people, both inside the
>US and even more so
>outside, from Central and South
>America, to Africa and Asia.

And that's a lie. Once again your assertion of the evil filty rich is tired. I guess the new industries and technologies that are being made every day comes off the backs of the poor too? I guess you can't get an education because the "man" won't let you get one? Your passionate reasoning is quite touching, but the facts say it's illogical. More and more people are owning their own businesses. More and more people are becoming financially independent. More and more people are self-employed, and more and more people are making fortunes than ever. That's why the economy is the best it's ever been in the history of the world. It's those opportunities and technologies that you're so much against, calling it exploitation.

>BS. If the poorer people have
>more and better access to
>education, jobs, etcetera, that means
>more people making more money.
> Which also happens to
>narrow the gap. Or
>is that option blasphemy to
>you ?

Yes, because you forgot one simple idea....cost of living. If all the poorer people were to get richer, say, by raising up minimum wage, in order for businesses to recieve a profit so they can live they would have to up revenue, which means that prices would have to go up. Therefore, all narrowing the gap is going to do is cause poor people to come up with more dollars in order to live. They call it minimum wage/standard of living for a reason; because it's the lowest job standard you can get.

So, even if they do get a better education, and even if you try to universally raise up the poor's income, all you're doing it making it harder for them and everyone else; them because they are still going to be poor, meaning they will have to gain more money in order to live under the comfort level you'd like to see them at, and everyone else because you are taking their money away from them, which means they will lose financial security and status, making it harder for them to get by. You're not helping out the economy, you're stifiling it.

>>Remember this, in this world no
>>matter what form of government
>>or whatever, there are always
>>going to be ones that
>>have and there are always
>>going to be ones that
>>don't have. That's just
>>how it is.
>
>That's just how it is.
>
>Interesting.
>
>You got infected with AIDS at
>a PRIVATE hospital, cos they
>don't care about checking the
>blood from donors (controlling that
>cuts profits, see) ?
>Too bad man, "that's just how
>it is".

You can get AIDS at government hospitals the same way. However, chances are that you'll be more likely to get it though public funded hospitals than private ones. Simply put, there is no business government can succeed at better than the private sector.

>Oh, it's that simple ?
>Sorry, forgot you don't acknowledge
>the existence of racism, sexism,
>unfair world trade (understatement of
>the year)

The thing is that with desire and ambition you can overcome all those things. Human will is one of the most strongest forces in this world. However, if you don't believe in yourself, then you aren't going to get much done.

>What about Softenon victims ?

never heard of it

>What about people who lost a
>leg when their unsafe General
>Motors car exploded ?

General Motors should be held responsible for putting out unsafe cars. Once again, fraud.

>Has little to do with your
>satanic government, but everything
>with private companies who got
>away with criminal activities becos
>of lack of democratic control.

Please. It is not the job of the public to control private businesses. They have a choice on if they want to do business with a company, but noone other than the owners/shareholders have a right to decide on the direction of the company. Plus, what you are proposing is that the government control these private companies through democratic consent. That's truly satanic, not to mention authoritarian.

>But they have less 'possibilities' to
>participate 100% in your capitalist
>economy, cos of medical reasons
>(and this is just one
>example).

Some win, some lose. Some are going to have it harder than others. That's life. Everyone may be created equal, but they don't live equally. The ones that are hurt by an auto accident have it no harder than someone that was attacked by an animal with those same injuries, or someone that was born with the same defects they acquired. That's not saying that General Motors shouldn't be held responsible, but if one with those defects can participate, then that means that everyone that has those same problems can also. Now them having to will to/and actually doing so, now that's a different story.

>>*sighs* Just think about it
>>for a minute. If
>>the rich didn't have the
>>lawyers or financial consultants (I
>>think that's what you were
>>trying to say) to help
>>them find tax writeoffs and
>>the like, then they would
>>be paying even more than
>>what they are already paying.
>
>So it's okay for people who
>can't afford financial consultants to
>pay more taxes ?

Who says they are paying more taxes? If you are talking about groups, yeah, but individually, no. You don't really think that a multimillionaire is actually paying less on taxes than someone that is making only $30 grand a year, do you?

>I thought you were pro equal
>opportunities ? Shouldn't everyone
>have access to financial consultants
>then ?

They do. The only difference is whether or not they can afford them.

>>>Calling that 'straight' democracy shows how
>>>far to the right you
>>>are.
>>
>>How? The House of Commons
>>isn't considered as a prototype
>>of a democratic government?
>>Then what is?
>
>All your posts so far have
>shown your inability to even
>try to understand what democracy
>means.

Ha. You haven't been able to explain to me what is your "ideal" democracy. You just tell me what democracy should do, but don't have any kind of plan in order to implement this idea. You haven't given me any models of this democracy you're in favor of, nor have you given me any kind of structure of this government you're in favor of. All you have done is thrown out some far-fetched ideas, but have yet to show me how this can be done. So, until you tell me what a democracy is, or at least your version of one, then what do I have to go by?

>The House Of Commons is far
>from democracy, ask any UK
>okayplayer.

All you guys do is sit and complain, sit and complain. Now it's put up or shut up time: come up with a fair, but realistic, way of giving the most power to the people? And just don't say democracy either, tell me how you plan to execute this idea of democracy. Until you can do that, you and the other Okayplayer liberals are doing nothing but blowing hot air.

I suggest you read this column

http://herald.com/content/today/opinion/columnists/pitts/digdocs/073792.htm

I think his opinion of all you "activists" are right on the money. You have no coherent plan, no kind of direction, no nothing. All you do is want to complain complain complain, without actually trying to come up with a logical solution to get things done.

I'm out.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 12:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "analyse"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

>>>Hell, just look at
>>>the music industry. Most
>>>vocal artists are not rich
>>>when they first start off,
>>>but they gain money through
>>>their music and selling of
>>>their albums, and make tons
>>>of money.
>>
>>Bwaahahahaha. I don't know if
>>any of the okayartists check
>>this board regularly, but I'd
>>looooooooove to hear what they
>>think about this.

>Who cares? They can complain
>all they want, but I
>doubt if they are going
>around hungry, especially ones with
>recording contracts and albums out.
>It's funny how celebrities
>complain about the "plight of
>the world" when they are
>part of the group that
>is taking advantage of the
>system that they are against.

So, when I proove your remarks to be completely false, it becomes irrelevant ? How convenient.

>>The music industry (and especially the
>>majors) is the prime example
>>of exploitation and modern day
>>slavery.
>
>Great hyperbole. Where's the charity
>organization in which I can
>contribute to?? Save the
>Musicians? Yes save these
>musicians from the evil music
>industry that has made alot
>of them 6 figure and
>7 figure salaries. Yes,
>my heart truly bleeds for
>them. Shame on Bad
>Boy Entertainment and Cash Money
>Records!

You obviously haven't got a clue : there's a huge difference between being an artist and a label manager/owner, and then there's still a huge difference between a sublabel and the major label execs.

Artists end up with 10-15% of the money generated with their music.

When you refer to 6 or 7 figure salaries, that's a very small minority of the artists in music today (but since you only care about rich people in general, don't let it worry you).

>Oh give me a break.
>Your
>assumption that everyone with money
>are nothing but asskissers and
>exploiters is becoming tired.

Where did I say this ? Simply cos I analyse today's system and criticize a few phenomenons, you conclude that's what I think ?

I have no problem with people working hard at all, nor with people making a lot of money through honest work.

I DO have problems with people making exorbitant amounts of money through speculation and exploitation of other people who have no means to defend themselves or stand up against it.

You should be able to separate both, just like I do.

Sorry that I don't fit into your simplistic logic where the rich are good guys and poor people are lazy bums. Like there's no lazy bums on the rich side ...

>I never said that. I
>said glass ceilings are made
>lower through socialism, and discrimination,
>whether by gender or race,
>is made stronger though that
>ideal.

But you failed to explain how. Which makes it as valid as your other rethoric.

>I also said
>that glass ceilings, racism, and
>sexism can be overcame however.
>It's all about the
>desire you want to overcome
>them.

I think you're gonna make a few million people very happy. Please share with us how to overcome structural racism and sexism, with nothing but desire, motivation and ambition.

>And that's a lie. Once
>again your assertion of the
>evil filty rich is tired.

No, your assumption that that is how I see every person with money is incorrect.

Stop seeing what you'd like to see and denying what doesn't fit in your logic (?)

>I guess the new
>industries and technologies that are
>being made every day comes
>off the backs of the
>poor too?

If you're referring to computers assembled by (Chinese) prisoners, yes.

>I guess
>you can't get an education
>because the "man" won't let
>you get one?

Sometimes this is the case.
I'd like to work towards 'it (almost) never happens'. You just say it never happens to make things easier.

If it turns out to be the opposite of what you say, you don't give a eff.

Life is easy that way, but I rather live my life my way.

>Your
>passionate reasoning is quite touching,
>but the facts say it's
>illogical.

Which facts ? Textbooks ? Written by people like you with no sense of reality or no experience with the real world outside your protective materialist cocoon ?

>More and more
>people are owning their own
>businesses. More and more
>people are becoming financially independent.
>More and more people
>are self-employed, and more and
>more people are making fortunes
>than ever. That's why
>the economy is the best
>it's ever been in the
>history of the world.
>It's those opportunities and technologies
>that you're so much against,
>calling it exploitation.

First of all, there's more people than ever too. So it's quite logical to have more self-owned businesses.

Secondly, you restrict your logic to the US, I don't. Mainly cos I don't live in the US, but also cos I see the other side of your bright shiny system and its consequences.

Those consequences are economical, cultural, social and so on. I don't have to accept your system. I don't have to agree with the US trying to shove it down my throat. And I can mos def express it here.

>Yes, because you forgot one simple
>idea....cost of living. If
>all the poorer people were
>to get richer, say, by
>raising up minimum wage, in
>order for businesses to recieve
>a profit so they can
>live they would have to
>up revenue, which means that
>prices would have to go
>up. Therefore, all narrowing
>the gap is going to
>do is cause poor people
>to come up with more
>dollars in order to live.
> They call it minimum
>wage/standard of living for a
>reason; because it's the lowest
>job standard you can get.

And you forget reality.
I've already mentioned before that prices DID GO UP (which is normal), but the lower wages didn't follow. So the gap only got bigger.

>So, even if they do get
>a better education, and even
>if you try to universally
>raise up the poor's income,
>all you're doing it making
>it harder for them and
>everyone else; them because they
>are still going to be
>poor, meaning they will have
>to gain more money in
>order to live under the
>comfort level you'd like to
>see them at, and everyone
>else because you are taking
>their money away from them,
>which means they will lose
>financial security and status, making
>it harder for them to
>get by. You're not
>helping out the economy, you're
>stifiling it.

No problem : we'll let the prices, rent, ... (cost of living) continue to rise and keep the low wages where they are right now and tell all people who suffer from this textbook theory that it's the best for them.

>>>Remember this, in this world no
>>>matter what form of government
>>>or whatever, there are always
>>>going to be ones that
>>>have and there are always
>>>going to be ones that
>>>don't have. That's just
>>>how it is.
>>
>>That's just how it is.
>>
>>Interesting.
>>
>>You got infected with AIDS at
>>a PRIVATE hospital, cos they
>>don't care about checking the
>>blood from donors (controlling that
>>cuts profits, see) ?
>>Too bad man, "that's just how
>>it is".
>
>You can get AIDS at government
>hospitals the same way.

Not here my friend.

>However, chances are that you'll
>be more likely to get
>it though public funded hospitals
>than private ones.

How ? Why ?
Oh, let me guess : most people don't have access to private hospitals cos they simply don't have the money to get in.

>Simply
>put, there is no business
>government can succeed at better
>than the private sector.

How ? Why ?

Plus you completely ignored my remark. You don't seem to realise that cutting profits at all cost holds a risk. And that that risk becomes bigger when competition gets tougher.

>>Oh, it's that simple ?
>>Sorry, forgot you don't acknowledge
>>the existence of racism, sexism,
>>unfair world trade (understatement of
>>the year)
>
>The thing is that with desire
>and ambition you can overcome
>all those things.

I don't think workers in Africa or Colombia have problems with desire or ambition.

Unless you believe that these people are inherently lazier, less motivated or dumber there's no reason to assume this.

>will is one of the
>most strongest forces in this
>world. However, if you
>don't believe in yourself, then
>you aren't going to get
>much done.

read my lips : N A I V E

I don't blame you son, you're still young and you're so stuck in your simplistic logic, that it must be quite terrifying to see people talking
about a more complex, more global reality.

>>What about Softenon victims ?
>
>never heard of it

Never mind. You wouldn't be interested anyway. You'd blame it on the victims.

>Please. It is not the
>job of the public to
>control private businesses. They
>have a choice on if
>they want to do business
>with a company, but noone
>other than the owners/shareholders have
>a right to decide on
>the direction of the company.

Excuse me while I disagree (c) Jimi Hendrix

Choosing for supporting a business is a way of controlling it.

>Plus, what you are
>proposing is that the government
>control these private companies through
>democratic consent. That's truly
>satanic, not to mention authoritarian.

Democratic consent = authoritarian ? Interesting.
Next thing you'll probably tell me is that blue = yellow ...

>>I thought you were pro equal
>>opportunities ? Shouldn't everyone
>>have access to financial consultants
>>then ?
>
>They do. The only difference
>is whether or not they
>can afford them.

If you don't have money to pay for the bus, you don't have access to it. Your access depends on your financial status.

>All you guys do is sit
>and complain, sit and complain.
>Now it's put up
>or shut up time:

No it isn't. That's what we call democracy over here

I'm not complaining. Actually, I'm analysing, and discussing some things I see happen, that are related to my life cos I'm mainly on the benefit side of it. And I don't agree with the fact that the luxury that has become such an evidence over here for people of my generation, has been and is still built on exploitation, genocide and oppression.

>tell me
>how you plan to execute
>this idea of democracy.
>Until you can do that,
>you and the other Okayplayer
>liberals are doing nothing but
>blowing hot air.

I'd rather blow hot air than have my head up my ass.

>I suggest you read this column
>
>http://herald.com/content/today/opinion/columnists/pitts/digdocs/073792.htm
>
>I think his opinion of all
>you "activists" are right on
>the money. You have
>no coherent plan, no kind
>of direction, no nothing.

What your friend is saying is the same reasoning as people saying ALL hiphop is BS cos there's a lot of people who don't know the culture.
Or saying that all homosexuals or lesbians are just doing it cos it's a trend (just cos there's a few people experimenting and switching sides).

Just cos there's a few people rioting or not completely informed about the cause of the protests, doesn't make the protesting or critique irrelevant.

Basically, that column just says that everyone who lives in a comfortable condition should shut up and not talk about the cost of us living this way, cos it annoys you too much. You don't like to hear it.

Too bad. You said yourself the truth can be hard to swallow. Better brace yourself kid.

>All you do is want
>to complain complain complain, without
>actually trying to come up
>with a logical solution to
>get things done.

Don't worry. I get things done on the daily. It's a slow process, but I know that since I know what I'm up against. I'm patient.

>I'm out.

Couldn't have said it better.


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Battousai
Charter member
4386 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 03:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "Krewcial, why are you still dealing with this fool?"
In response to Reply # 17


          

He's already demonstrated his lack of hands-on experience regarding sociopolitical matters. Hell, that he quoted Alexander Tyler should have been a dead giveaway.

He's all talk. I refuse to take his arguments seriously until he quits playing around and climbs down from that ivory tower of his.

By the way, Expertise, you never answered my question: Why are you so afraid of democracy?

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"If victories are flawless, then what are you gonna land on?" - Thirstin Howl III

"I prefer manga, with mecha..." - Del

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/

--

Your San Francisco Giants: 4.26.2005 - 8.15.2005.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sun Aug-27-00 11:31 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "RE: analyse"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

>>Who cares? They can complain
>>all they want, but I
>>doubt if they are going
>>around hungry, especially ones with
>>recording contracts and albums out.
>>It's funny how celebrities
>>complain about the "plight of
>>the world" when they are
>>part of the group that
>>is taking advantage of the
>>system that they are against.
>
>So, when I proove your remarks
>to be completely false, it
>becomes irrelevant ? How
>convenient.

What did you prove false? All you said was "go ask the artists". That isn't telling me nothing. Of course they are going to give me their point of view, but that doesn't mean that it is the truth.
>Artists end up with 10-15% of
>the money generated with their
>music.

That's more than most employees make of company revenue. Not to mention the promotions, the manufacturing of the CD's, any kind of special costs, yadda yadda yadda.....

Besides it's real simple. If you didn't like the cut of the money you were getting paid, then you shouldn't have signed the contract, and asked for something higher, or else go to another company. When you sign the dotted line to any contract that means you agree and understand all the decisions specified on it. Hence, don't sign something you don't know about.

>When you refer to 6 or
>7 figure salaries, that's a
>very small minority of the
>artists in music today (but
>since you only care about
>rich people in general, don't
>let it worry you).

I won't, because common sense dictates that if you aren't making money in one profession, then you go to another profession. Hey, they always need a new fry guy at McDonalds.

>>Oh give me a break.
>>Your
>>assumption that everyone with money
>>are nothing but asskissers and
>>exploiters is becoming tired.
>
>Where did I say this ?
> Simply cos I analyse
>today's system and criticize a
>few phenomenons, you conclude that's
>what I think ?
>I have no problem with people
>working hard at all, nor
>with people making a lot
>of money through honest work.

Well if it's only a "few phenomenoms", then why do you advocate taking their hard earned money by force, instead of simply finding out and stopping this exploitation individually?

>I DO have problems with people
>making exorbitant amounts of money
>through speculation and exploitation of
>other people who have no
>means to defend themselves or
>stand up against it.

Who doesn't? I don't like people being took advantage of either. But everyone shouldn't suffer because of the evils of a few,

>Sorry that I don't fit into
>your simplistic logic where the
>rich are good guys and
>poor people are lazy bums.
> Like there's no lazy
>bums on the rich side

Wrong. There are bad rich people as are good rich people. The contrary is true also. However I don't believe in taking money from people who earned it

God man I have explained twice already. Listen.
Socialism takes away opportunities for advancement and growth, which makes it that much harder to achieve. That means those factors that you speak of become virtually larger under socialism and democracy.

>>I also said
>>that glass ceilings, racism, and
>>sexism can be overcame however.
>>It's all about the
>>desire you want to overcome
>>them.

>I think you're gonna make a
>few million people very happy.
> Please share with us
>how to overcome structural racism
>and sexism, with nothing but
>desire, motivation and ambition.

Ask around, read, or listen. I don't know about Belgium, but here it happens every day. Just about every obstacle in this world has been overcome by someone.

>>I guess the new
>>industries and technologies that are
>>being made every day comes
>>off the backs of the
>>poor too?
>
>If you're referring to computers assembled
>by (Chinese) prisoners, yes.

Well blame that on the Chinese government, not industries.

>>I guess
>>you can't get an education
>>because the "man" won't let
>>you get one?
>
>Sometimes this is the case.
>I'd like to work towards 'it
>(almost) never happens'. You
>just say it never happens
>to make things easier.
>If it turns out to be
>the opposite of what you
>say, you don't give a
>eff.

Because it makes no sense! You're trying to make emotionalistic reasoning logical when it isn't.

>Life is easy that way, but
>I rather live my life
>my way.

Well good. If you feel that way, then I should be able to do live my life my way also, hence stop whining to government to try to control other peoples' lives.

>Which facts ? Textbooks ?
> Written by people like
>you with no sense of
>reality or no experience with
>the real world outside your
>protective materialist cocoon ?

You can call it a cocoon, but you see the thing is that we "materialists" have the materials, and you don't. Therefore if you want materials too, you'll ask someone that got them. Why go to a desert to get water?

>First of all, there's more people
>than ever too. So
>it's quite logical to have
>more self-owned businesses.

Not true. The world's population grows every day, but that doesn't mean that every country is going to gain more businesses.

>Secondly, you restrict your logic to
>the US, I don't.
>Mainly cos I don't live
>in the US, but also
>cos I see the other
>side of your bright shiny
>system and its consequences.

Well, that's nice. However, like I said before that is irrevelant because the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of other countries and their governments. Not to mention that government and national issues are based within the confines of our national borders. Other countries may model them, but we do so for our own interests. Therefore, we aren't going to simply break down our government and principles simply because other countries want it to be that way. That's why there is a thing called national soverignty. You can do what you want to with your own country, but you have, nor should have, any influence on how we govern ourselves here.

>Those consequences are economical, cultural, social
>and so on. I
>don't have to accept your
>system. I don't have
>to agree with the US
>trying to shove it down
>my throat. And I
>can mos def express it
>here.

*LOL* You have no choice but to accept our system. It is our system that runs the world, and will probably do so until doomsday. The US sets the pace for the rest of the world. As I mentioned about high achievers, if they aren't doing good, then the rest of the world isn't either. It's the same with international prosperity as well. You don't have to agree to it, but you might as well get used to it.

>>Yes, because you forgot one simple
>>idea....cost of living. If
>>all the poorer people were
>>to get richer, say, by
>>raising up minimum wage, in
>>order for businesses to recieve
>>a profit so they can
>>live they would have to
>>up revenue, which means that
>>prices would have to go
>>up. Therefore, all narrowing
>>the gap is going to
>>do is cause poor people
>>to come up with more
>>dollars in order to live.
>> They call it minimum
>>wage/standard of living for a
>>reason; because it's the lowest
>>job standard you can get.

>And you forget reality.
>I've already mentioned before that prices
>DID GO UP (which is
>normal), but the lower wages
>didn't follow. So the
>gap only got bigger.

But like I said before the gap is going to get bigger regardless because the more money people make, the bigger it's going to get. I'm not arguing the gap is going to get bigger, I'm arguing that raising the minimum wage will only make it get even bigger. What, you expect businesses to be willing to lose revenue? Yea right. Either prices will go up, or businesses will cut their costs considerably (labor, equipment, benefits), or they could possibly liquidate and go out of business. Your choice.

>>So, even if they do get
>>a better education, and even
>>if you try to universally
>>raise up the poor's income,
>>all you're doing it making
>>it harder for them and
>>everyone else; them because they
>>are still going to be
>>poor, meaning they will have
>>to gain more money in
>>order to live under the
>>comfort level you'd like to
>>see them at, and everyone
>>else because you are taking
>>their money away from them,
>>which means they will lose
>>financial security and status, making
>>it harder for them to
>>get by. You're not
>>helping out the economy, you're
>>stifiling it.

>No problem : we'll let the
>prices, rent, ... (cost of
>living) continue to rise and
>keep the low wages where
>they are right now and
>tell all people who suffer
>from this textbook theory that
>it's the best for them.

But you're not making any sense, because the cost of living will never go over what the target consumer can afford in order for the business to make a profit. If noone can afford to pay rent, then reasoning would dictate to drop the rent down so you can get some people to at least bring in something. Some revenue is better than no revenue.

>>However, chances are that you'll
>>be more likely to get
>>it though public funded hospitals
>>than private ones.
>
>How ? Why ?
>Oh, let me guess : most
>people don't have access to
>private hospitals cos they simply
>don't have the money to
>get in.

Nope, it's because in order for hospitals or any place to have patients they don't need the negative publicity to get out to their prospective patients. And yes, there are hospitals that do base themselves on financial prospects. But nothing in this world comes free, you have to pay for the best to get the best. You get what you pay for.

>>Simply
>>put, there is no business
>>government can succeed at better
>>than the private sector.
>
>How ? Why ?

Because the private sector is competitive, and are going to compete among themselves in order to be the product everyone recognizes. Government has no such competition, which means there is less of a chance they will look out of the people's best interests, and will simply give them whatever they want, especially if it is a solution to higher profit.

>Plus you completely ignored my remark.
> You don't seem to
>realise that cutting profits at
>all cost holds a risk.
> And that that risk
>becomes bigger when competition gets
>tougher.

Yeah, risk for the companies themselves to lower them. If they don't, then they lose business. And when competition gets tougher that means more opportunities for both labor and the consumer.

>I don't think workers in Africa
>or Colombia have problems with
>desire or ambition.
>Unless you believe that these people
>are inherently lazier, less motivated
>or dumber there's no reason
>to assume this.

No, just less opportunities provided by less success because of their corrupt governments.

>>will is one of the
>>most strongest forces in this
>>world. However, if you
>>don't believe in yourself, then
>>you aren't going to get
>>much done.

>read my lips : N A
>I V E
>I don't blame you son, you're
>still young and you're so
>stuck in your simplistic logic,
>that it must be quite
>terrifying to see people talking

It's sad you have such a defeatist attitude. I don't blame you old coot, you're old and have nothing much to live for, so you feel the same for others, so your're stuck in your pessimist attitude and simplistic logic. You must be jealous watching other people succeed. Get over it.

>Choosing for supporting a business is
>a way of controlling it.

Yeah I'm sure that's what you meant by a family wishing they had democractic control over General Motors. Sure.

>>Plus, what you are
>>proposing is that the government
>>control these private companies through
>>democratic consent. That's truly
>>satanic, not to mention authoritarian.

>Democratic consent = authoritarian ?
>Interesting.
>Next thing you'll probably tell me
>is that blue = yellow

You'd probably want a referendum changing the name of the color of blue in order to call it yellow. You might win too.

>If you don't have money to
>pay for the bus, you
>don't have access to it.
> Your access depends on
>your financial status.

But your financial status can vary, with you being financially secure at one time and not doing as well in the other. Therefore they still have access to it, just not at the moment. That means they have the opportunity to get financial counseling, but whether or not they take it is a different story.

>>tell me
>>how you plan to execute
>>this idea of democracy.
>>Until you can do that,
>>you and the other Okayplayer
>>liberals are doing nothing but
>>blowing hot air.

>I'd rather blow hot air than
>have my head up my
>ass.

YOU ARE STILL EVADING THE QUESTION. What is your model of fair democracy??? Stop trying to play dozens and answer what I asked for once.

>>I suggest you read this column
>>
>>http://herald.com/content/today/opinion/columnists/pitts/digdocs/073792.htm
>>
>>I think his opinion of all
>>you "activists" are right on
>>the money. You have
>>no coherent plan, no kind
>>of direction, no nothing.

>What your friend is saying is
>the same reasoning as people
>saying ALL hiphop is BS
>cos there's a lot of
>people who don't know the
>culture.
>Or saying that all homosexuals or
>lesbians are just doing it
>cos it's a trend (just
>cos there's a few people
>experimenting and switching sides).
>Just cos there's a few people
>rioting or not completely informed
>about the cause of the
>protests, doesn't make the protesting
>or critique irrelevant.

Wrong. He said no such thing. I think you need to reread that column again.
He mention there are still alot of problems with the world, and they can be solved. However, the protests going on at conventions and such were nothing but a big clusterfuck of people with different agendas. There was no specific agenda inthem because it was like hundreds of people going in 500 different directions and having 500 different issues.

Also, as he mentioned, the whole purpose of protest and activism is to rally people to your cause. How are they going to know when there are 500 other agendas going on in your protests? Notice the media couldn't put a specific reason of protest up there because there were so many. It's like you're pushing and moving each other around trying to see who can get the most attention. Meanwhile, you're doing nothing to help your cause because people are confused by this clusterfuck of protests all going at once so they can't decide whether they agree or don't agree. A protest is moot if you can't rally people towards your beliefs.

>Basically, that column just says that
>everyone who lives in a
>comfortable condition should shut up
>and not talk about the
>cost of us living this
>way, cos it annoys you
>too much. You don't
>like to hear it.

Wrong. Like I said, reread the column. He said that the clusterfuck makes the protesters look less like they want to help a cause and more like they are just out there for the sake of protesting and being heard. I agree, because none of them really has any sort of direction they are going in, and the whole thing looks like a hybrid of views all going at once. He wasn't complaining about the protest itself, he was complaining about the lack of direction you guys have.

>Too bad. You said yourself
>the truth can be hard
>to swallow. Better brace
>yourself kid.

Yeah, and when that truth is coming in 50 different directions, most people will be lucky to understand what's going on.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Fri Aug-25-00 02:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "Voltaire, baby!"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Hadn't noticed that Voltaire quote.

I live in a small (like 3-4,000 people) village called Ferney-Voltaire! He died here and had a castle here. And as Krewcial said, he was talking about the Ancien Régime, which meant money going from the peasants to the aristocrats.

Also, I'm glad to hear you're not part of the Republican party.

More: if you are so for competition, why didn't you think that the Green Party's idea of limiting company market shares to 10% was a bad idea? Increased competition is always good.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Mon Aug-28-00 04:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "sorry I dropped out..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

but this conversation (which has been the same since we "met" you, Expertise) is getting very boring, and the posts way too long.

1. Here are a few things you said recently
"However, like I said before that is irrevelant because the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of other countries and their governments. Not to mention that government and national issues are based within the confines of our national borders. Other countries may model them, but we do so for our own interests. Therefore, we aren't going to simply break down our government and principles simply because other countries want it to be that way. That's why there is a thing called national soverignty. You can do what you want to with your own country, but you have, nor should have, any influence on how we govern ourselves here."

but then you say

"You have no choice but to accept our system. It is our system that runs the world, and will probably do so until doomsday. The US sets the pace for the rest of the world. As I mentioned about high achievers, if they aren't doing good, then the rest of the world isn't either. It's the same with international prosperity as well. You don't have to agree to it, but you might as well get used to it."

Does a comment need to be made? You're libertarian, we're authoritarian?

I think the fundamental question is: why do you hate people (or "the people")?

You obviously don't think they can govern themselves, and that the most important decision they should be allowed to make is which brand of soap to buy.

I have a few more things to say, but reply to this first, please. And don't tell me "I never said I hate the people", because that's one of the few things you have been saying over and over.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Mon Aug-28-00 02:46 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "To Mke and Binlahab"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

>but this conversation (which has been
>the same since we "met"
>you, Expertise) is getting very
>boring, and the posts way
>too long.

*sighs* Such is the problem with people today. Important issues are too "mundane" for them, and they rather gossip or clown around. I'll get into this a lil further below.

>1. Here are a few things
>you said recently
>"However, like I said before that
>is irrevelant because the federal
>government doesn't have jurisdiction over
>the domestic affairs of other
>countries and their governments. Not
>to mention that government and
>national issues are based within
>the confines of our national
>borders. Other countries may model
>them, but we do so
>for our own interests. Therefore,
>we aren't going to simply
>break down our government and
>principles simply because other countries
>want it to be that
>way. That's why there is
>a thing called national soverignty.
>You can do what you
>want to with your own
>country, but you have, nor
>should have, any influence on
>how we govern ourselves here."
>
>
>but then you say
>
>"You have no choice but to
>accept our system. It is
>our system that runs the
>world, and will probably do
>so until doomsday. The US
>sets the pace for the
>rest of the world. As
>I mentioned about high achievers,
>if they aren't doing good,
>then the rest of the
>world isn't either. It's the
>same with international prosperity as
>well. You don't have to
>agree to it, but you
>might as well get used
>to it."
>
>Does a comment need to be
>made? You're libertarian, we're authoritarian?

The comment was not meant to be taken as the United States is the sole/top authority in the world. It means our system is the most successful in the history of the world. Bottom line. Therefore, why get rid of a good thing because others are jealous of it's success? Like I said, people can model our success, but that doesn't mean we will necessarily take their other wishes in high regard, at least until we see that they work. Therefore, you, Krewcial, and the rest of the Euros can continue to complain about the US's system, however, there isn't another out there that can even compete with ours. That's just how it is.

>I think the fundamental question is:
>why do you hate people
>(or "the people")?
>You obviously don't think they can
>govern themselves, and that the
>most important decision they should
>be allowed to make is
>which brand of soap to
>buy.
>I have a few more things
>to say, but reply to
>this first, please. And don't
>tell me "I never said
>I hate the people", because
>that's one of the few
>things you have been saying
>over and over.

Well what you want me to do, lie? You made that statement after your question because you know I never said I have hated "the people".

I do think they can govern themselves, but not each other. People are individuals. We are all born with individual thoughts, grow up having individual experiences, and we each have individual desires. Therefore, why try to clump everyone under one whole group? That doesn't make sense.

So, when you allow "the people" to try to decide what's best for each other, instead of simply minimizing government to the point where people are individually in control of their own lives and own prosperity, then you are taking away the freedoms of the people who don't agree with the status quo.

Government is/shouldn't be established as a national parent council. Government should be there to keep the nation together, and to prevent other people from taking away your human rights, along with your right to life, liberty, and property. Those ideals shouldn't be established by the fickle and wishy-washyness of the opinions of men, it should be based on something concrete, something that doesn't vary. What better way to do this than put it on paper for all to see and abide by? Then there is no question whatsoever about what the law is, or what the principles of that law are based on. Any future laws and acts should be based on those principles.

When you base a nation on men and not laws, then what you're doing is weakening the laws, saying they should be scrapped for certain purposes. Laws are not flexible; they shouldn't be scrapped or overridden because of public opinion. Law should be constant, whether you're on the right side of it or the wrong side of it. That way, everyone knows where the law stands, and don't have to worry about if a certain law only appeals to just them or appeals to everyone.

I guess you can simply call me a free spirit. I feel I should be able to do what I want as long as I am not hurting others. If my opinions and theories are against the majority opinion, I want to know that the law protects my voice and my wishes as well as the majority. I am an individual. I don't do everything everyone else does, and I'm sure you know I don't think the same way anyone else does either. Am I not entitled to the same influence others have? Why should they have direction over MY life?

So I ask, what's stopping people, if they feel strongly about certain issues, from doing it themselves individually? If you feel that charity funds should go over to help people in Rawanda, what's stopping you from pulling cash out of your pocket to make that happen? Do you have to force other people to do it also? If a group of you want to do it, what's stopping you from doing it in a group? If you don't believe in abortions, then don't have one. Why must you force other people not to also? If you want to make more money, why can't you get it yourself? Why must you force other people to give it up? There are no options when it comes to government; everything they do is through force, because they are the law. When you make ideals laws, there are no ifs ands or buts; if you don't abide by it, you have to pay the consequences.

That's what the Tyler quote means. It means that voters are going to vote for candidates that look out for their best interests and not necessarily for the interests of all. What better interest is there than having money in your pocket?
Why should the masses collectively have power over what everyone else does?

The simple fact is that "the people", as well-intentional as they may seem, do not know what's best for me, just as I and others don't know what's best for them. Therefore, they shouldn't make decisions that affect my life and my prosperity. They don't know how my money should be spent. They don't know what is going on in domestic, national, and foreign affairs every minute. They all don't know what's best for the economy. They all don't know whats best for society. And they never will, because it is impossible, nor does everyone desire, to know everything that's going on everywhere in their state, nation, or world. Just like you didn't want to continue the conversation because it was too long and boring for you, most people don't involve themselves in politics and current events because THEY don't want to. So, why/how are you going to force them?

If you want people to be involved/interested in daily affairs, you can't just simply invite them to. You have to educate them, and show them why they should. If you give vegetables to a carnivore, he isn't going to eat it, but if you show him it's in his best interests to eat them, then perhaps he will. To simply think you can entice someone with something for the mere fact that it enticed you means nothing.

So, I will never approve of democracy. Maybe representation, but never legislation based on public opinion. I like people, but just because I like them doesn't mean I trust them to make accurate decisions on how
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 04:10 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
26. "RE: To Mke and Binlahab"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

>Important
>issues are too "mundane" for
>them, and they rather gossip
>or clown around. I'll
>get into this a lil
>further below.

Not necessarily. Some folks just have other things to talk about that are more important to them. What is more pressing to me, paying the rent, or musings of a few cats at the Trilateral commission?

>The comment was not meant to
>be taken as the United
>States is the sole/top authority
>in the world.

It is by default, at least currently.

>It
>means our system is the
>most successful in the history
>of the world.

What about the Romans? The Moors? The Chinese?

Like I
>said, people can model our
>success, but that doesn't mean
>we will necessarily take their
>other wishes in high regard,
>at least until we see
>that they work.

It depends on what you mean by work. Most folks in western european socialist/capitalist spots are taken care of. They don't really have the freedom to be rich or poor though.

>I do think they can govern
>themselves, but not each other.

Does that include their families?

> People are individuals.
>We are all born with
>individual thoughts, grow up having
>individual experiences, and we each
>have individual desires. Therefore,
>why try to clump everyone
>under one whole group?
>That doesn't make sense.

Everyone realizes this. That's why we have something like majority rule. The main idea is that all our our competing interests will counteract each other, until we get to one thing that everyone can agree on.

>So, when you allow "the people"
>to try to decide what's
>best for each other, instead
>of simply minimizing government to
>the point where people are
>individually in control of their
>own lives and own prosperity,
>then you are taking away
>the freedoms of the people
>who don't agree with the
>status quo.

But minimizing government does the same thing. Without the federal govt's bureaucracy a state government could do practically anything to it's unpopular members.

You can not have this discussion in absence of understanding both federal and state rights.

>Government is/shouldn't be established as a
>national parent council. Government
>should be there to keep
>the nation together, and to
>prevent other people from taking
>away your human rights,

In our system you have 2 competing interests. What if the majority members in a state want to persecute the minority members? The only thing that protects Black Georgians from White Georgians is the federal government.

along
>with your right to life,
>liberty, and property. Those
>ideals shouldn't be established by
>the fickle and wishy-washyness of
>the opinions of men, it
>should be based on something
>concrete, something that doesn't vary.

Which would be?

> What better way to
>do this than put it
>on paper for all to
>see and abide by?

Are you talking about the US constitution? Or Constitutions in general? You realize other govts have constitutions that are not at all effective. You should read the Soviet cons. They had all sorts of "freedoms" ignored by their ruling party.

>Then there is no question
>whatsoever about what the law
>is, or what the principles
>of that law are based
>on. Any future laws
>and acts should be based
>on those principles.

Actually there are plenty of questions. That is why we have a Supreme Court. You should study constitutional history.

>When you base a nation on
>men and not laws, then
>what you're doing is weakening
>the laws, saying they should
>be scrapped for certain purposes.

That is the nature of the beast. We are not automatons or photons.

> Laws are not flexible;
>they shouldn't be scrapped or
>overridden because of public opinion.

What is a law other than the proclaiment of public opinion? The laws of man are not like the laws of physics.

> Law should be constant,
>whether you're on the right
>side of it or the
>wrong side of it.

There are gray areas and competing interests.

>That way, everyone knows where
>the law stands, and don't
>have to worry about if
>a certain law only appeals
>to just them or appeals
>to everyone.

There are specific laws for specific people. Our military, those who protect our laws, live by a different set of laws.

>I feel I should be
>able to do what I
>want as long as I
>am not hurting others.

Then you get into a contest of measuring causation. Maybe what you do doesn't hurt others directly, but it could be that you damage others down the line.

>If my opinions and theories
>are against the majority opinion,
>I want to know that
>the law protects my voice
>and my wishes as well
>as the majority.

So when wishes collide, whom does the law protect? If the national public wants to protect endangered animals but you like to kill bald eagles, who should be right?

>Am I not
>entitled to the same influence
>others have?

Why should you? What entitles you to that influence?

Why should
>they have direction over MY
>life?

It's not should, but a question of do they have the power. You realize lots of non-political entities have lots of power over your life. 3 credit bureaus for instance can control where you live and how you move around this country. These guys aren't subject to direct political control.

>So I ask, what's stopping people,
>if they feel strongly about
>certain issues, from doing it
>themselves individually?

Nothing.

If you
>feel that charity funds should
>go over to help people
>in Rawanda, what's stopping you
>from pulling cash out of
>your pocket to make that
>happen?

Nothing.

>Do you have
>to force other people to
>do it also?

They don't force other people to do it. My duly elected representative makes that choice for me. And If I'm mad at him for sending my money to Rwanda, I elect someone else.

>If you
>don't believe in abortions, then
>don't have one.

I also believe in protecting the rights of the powerless from the powerful. If a father wants to molest his daughter, the one that he pays for, feeds, and clothes, what right do I as a stranger have to protect her?

>Why
>must you force other people
>not to also?

We are talking about more than one set of rights. I might believe in choice, but to believe in choice I also have to acknowledge that the fetus has no rights. Anti-Abortionists do not make that same acknowledgement.

If
>you want to make more
>money, why can't you get
>it yourself?

Lots of reasons. But if you want it, you can get it.

> Why must
>you force other people to
>give it up?

Are you talking about taxes? If rich folks are scared of a communist takeover in Vietnam, why should the sons and daughters of poor people have to go fight for cats in Washington. There is no reason other than force. Our government is really only restrained violence.

But we exchange our freedom for security.

There
>are no options when it
>comes to government; everything they
>do is through force, because
>they are the law.

Because we are the law, we are the government. Why are you separating the politicians from the polity?

> When you make ideals
>laws, there are no ifs
>ands or buts; if you
>don't abide by it, you
>have to pay the consequences.

In a perfect world sure. In our world if you have the right opportunities you can ignore many of our ideals.

>That's what the Tyler quote means.
> It means that voters
>are going to vote for
>candidates that look out for
>their best interests and not
>necessarily for the interests of
>all. What better interest
>is there than having money
>in your pocket?

Staying alive.

>Why should the masses collectively have
>power over what everyone else
>does?

Should they, I don't know. Do they, Yes they do.

>The simple fact is that "the
>people", as well-intentional as they
>may seem, do not know
>what's best for me, just
>as I and others don't
>know what's best for them.

But even though we come from different backgrounds and have different interests there are a few things that we agree on. And I might not want you to get a military base in your city, and you might not want to put a supercollider in mine, we can both agree to build a highway or a hospital.

> Therefore, they shouldn't make
>decisions that affect my life
>and my prosperity.

You already agreed to be apart of the society, so you must abide by their rules. If you don't agree you can leave.

They
>don't know how my money
>should be spent. They
>don't know what is going
>on in domestic, national, and
>foreign affairs every minute.

The people that make those decisions do. That is why we have a national legislature and not a national referendum.

>They all don't know what's
>best for the economy.

No one knows what is best for the economy. None of it works. You can take the best minds of the world and they don't know. (read anything about Long Term Capital if you don't believe me)

>
>If you want people to be
>involved/interested in daily affairs, you
>can't just simply invite them
>to. You have to
>educate them, and show them
>why they should.

In essence force them to.


>So, I will never approve of
>democracy. Maybe representation, but
>never legislation based on public
>opinion.

You mean direct public opinion.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 12:57 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "RE: To Mke and Binlahab"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

Before I start, I think you got the intentions for my statements a lil mixed up. Some of them were referring to democracy, or direct democracy as you would say. So, where I see you've made that mistake, I'll simply ignore it and try to respond to the rest of your responses. Wish me luck.

>Not necessarily. Some folks just
>have other things to talk
>about that are more important
>to them. What is
>more pressing to me, paying
>the rent, or musings of
>a few cats at the
>Trilateral commission?

True, but the actions of government can affect your rent, and affect where you live, or if you live at all.

>>It
>>means our system is the
>>most successful in the history
>>of the world.

>What about the Romans? The Moors?
>The Chinese?

I doubt it. Can it be said that so much "riches" have been achieved by such a large number of people, and without constantly invading other countries? I doubt it. Not to mention that the US spurred technological advances quicker in one time period than in any other. I'd say that's superior progress.

>It depends on what you mean
>by work. Most folks
>in western european socialist/capitalist spots
>are taken care of.
>They don't really have the
>freedom to be rich or
>poor though.

Right. I feel freedom and government security are judged on a virtual scale. You can't have government security and expect total freedom. I think lack of progress that has been made in Europe is spurred from the control government has over the people ie big government policies, European Union, and such.

>>I do think they can govern
>>themselves, but not each other.

>Does that include their families?

Semantics. Of course a head of household has the authority in his/her own house, given he isnt breaking the law in doing so, ie assault, slavery, forcing them to engage in illegal activity, etc.

>Everyone realizes this. That's why
>we have something like majority
>rule. The main idea
>is that all our our
>competing interests will counteract each
>other, until we get to
>one thing that everyone can
>agree on.

Majority rule is not unaminous rule. Maybe that can be done in a group of 10, but not in a group of 270 million. Therefore not everyone is going to agree on it.

>But minimizing government does the same
>thing. Without the federal
>govt's bureaucracy a state government
>could do practically anything to
>it's unpopular members.

Right again. I believe in holding state governments accountable under the feds. However 2 things must be remembered.

1. Most US state governments are based on democracies anyway.
2. Who is going to hold the feds accountable of the same thing? That's why we have the system of checks and balances. Unfortuantely alot of state governments don't use the same intricate systems. I'm orginally from North Carolina, and Gov. Hunt is the only governor in the country that doesn't have the power of veto. George Bush doesn't have the power of pardon in Texas (Which makes it amusing how people blame him for executions there. That's another reason why we should not put national issues in the hands of an ill-informed public). Therefore, I think it is acceptable for the federal governments to investigate the accusations of unlawfulness at the hands of state governments.

>In our system you have 2
>competing interests. What if
>the majority members in a
>state want to persecute the
>minority members? The only
>thing that protects Black Georgians
>from White Georgians is the
>federal government.

That's one of the biggest reasons why I advocate a constitutional republic. Because we as black people are minorities ourselves! Democracy at its worst would have the tendency to eat our freedoms alive.

>Are you talking about the US
>constitution? Or Constitutions in
>general? You realize other
>govts have constitutions that are
>not at all effective.
>You should read the Soviet
>cons. They had all
>sorts of "freedoms" ignored by
>their ruling party.

Ours. But, even though those failed because they didn't allow freedom, the purpose of their constitution was to have a set of laws to give a solid foundation to their government. I'm sure they broke their own laws and principles just as the US did in the early days of this country, especially in the persecution of AA's and such, but that was the "representatives"' fault, not the law's. The people simply let them get away with it until they had enough, and in both cases (early US history, and the Soviet reigns) those systems broke down.

>What is a law other than
>the proclaiment of public opinion?
> The laws of man
>are not like the laws
>of physics.

If that was true, then the civil rights movement would have not been successful. I know there's not a specific way to find out now, but I believe if we had nationwide referendums on the Voting Rights Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, along with desegregation, we would have lost. Same with American slavery. I think more people were worried about keeping the nation together than freeing black people. The Slavery Amendment was just punishment to the South and to make sure this argument would never surface again. Democratic opinion I believe would have kept slavery established, especially since the South for the longest had the larger support, in both territory, population, and states. I forgot the name of the act, but it said that in order for a territory to become a slave or a free state, another one must be formed and become the opposite. I know it came from the "Bleeding Kansas" incident.

>There are specific laws for specific
>people. Our military, those
>who protect our laws, live
>by a different set of
>laws.

Yes but that's because the military is considered an autonomy, which I think is necessary to do in order to keep one focus and direction.

>Then you get into a contest
>of measuring causation. Maybe
>what you do doesn't hurt
>others directly, but it could
>be that you damage others
>down the line.

But should I necessarily be held accountable for my indirect actions?

>So when wishes collide, whom does
>the law protect? If
>the national public wants to
>protect endangered animals but you
>like to kill bald eagles,
>who should be right?

I think you miss the point. The law should not be made because the national public approves of it, it should be because the protection of the environment is necessary for the success of the nation. Let's say that national opinion was the opposite. Does that mean we should repeal protection of bald eagles? I don't think so.

>It's not should, but a question
>of do they have the
>power. You realize lots
>of non-political entities have lots
>of power over your life.
> 3 credit bureaus for
>instance can control where you
>live and how you move
>around this country. These
>guys aren't subject to direct
>political control.

It just so happens that I don't like credit bureaus being able to give information about me to others either. *LOL* But still as long as it isn't fraudulent, then that doesn't mean they shouldn't be free too. You also have to remember that it's indirectly, in which the loaner makes the final decision, and it isn't based solely on your credit history (salary, length of employment, etc.) I wanted to ask you tho, if you know, what gives credit bureaus the right to hold closed credit accounts for 7 years? I know you can have it taken off legally, but I wonder who gave them the power to even take control of the account. That's something that I wonder about often, since I now have my credit report checked.

>> Why must
>>you force other people to
>>give it up?

>Are you talking about taxes?
>If rich folks are scared
>of a communist takeover in
>Vietnam, why should the sons
>and daughters of poor people
>have to go fight for
>cats in Washington. There
>is no reason other than
>force. Our government is
>really only restrained violence.

I agree, and I believe government should not be putting our military in any life threatening situation unless it directly threatens American security and interests. Our military is not an humanitarian organization, as Slick Willie has tried to make it.

>But we exchange our freedom for
>security.

You have never lied in makin that statement.

> There
>>are no options when it
>>comes to government; everything they
>>do is through force, because
>>they are the law.
>
>Because we are the law, we
>are the government. Why
>are you separating the politicians
>from the polity?

Okay, lemme retract just a LIL bit. The laws and regulations must have some kind of support among the people (well, not really, byt let's consider we are talking about the US and not governments in general) However, one thing that I liked in Gore's nomination speech is when he said, "The presidency should not be popularity contest. Sometimes the president has to do things that the people don't like for the benefit of the whole country. (I'm paraphrasing) Sometimes you got to choose the hard right over the easy wrong." I agree.

>In a perfect world sure.
>In our world if you
>have the right opportunities you
>can ignore many of our
>ideals.

True. But that's not the fault of the law, it's the people themselves. The law cannot enforce itself.

>But even though we come from
>different backgrounds and have different
>interests there are a few
>things that we agree on.
> And I might not
>want you to get a
>military base in your city,
>and you might not want
>to put a supercollider in
>mine, we can both agree
>to build a highway or
>a hospital.

I'm not saying that laws should constatnly go against the wishes of the people. That would cause chaos. I'm saying that the wishes of the people are not the most important factor; the state and direction of the nation is.

>You already agreed to be apart
>of the society, so you
>must abide by their rules.
> If you don't agree
>you can leave.

That's authoritarian. Why should people not be free to live their own lives free of societal opinion of themselves and societal view of the direction of their lives? Should black people have left the country in post-Reconstruction because they were being discriminated against, because society in effect said, "Get used to it?" No. If that was the case, then discrimination of that magnatude would will be happening today. The individual, which is the smallest minority, should have some kind of direction of their lives, free from societal wishes along as it doesn't negatively affect others.

>>If you want people to be
>>involved/interested in daily affairs, you
>>can't just simply invite them
>>to. You have to
>>educate them, and show them
>>why they should.
>
>In essence force them to.

That's not force. Force is when you physically make people do something they don't want to do. Persuasion is much different.

Anyways, good post. Probably the most logical responses I've ever had in OKP.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Binlahab
Charter member
182925 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 10:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "man, dont put me in this"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

I'm a poli sci/history major...just keeping up with ya'll is an assignment...

on sabbatical.

does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 10:57 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "I meant Battousai"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

Sorry dawg. I kinda get you two's names mixed up

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Battousai
Charter member
4386 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 04:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "*Sigh* Since you called me out..."
In response to Reply # 23


          

I'm not even going to bother being civil here, but I'll try to keep the venom to a reasonable level.

>*sighs* Such is the problem
>with people today. Important
>issues are too "mundane" for
>them, and they rather gossip
>or clown around. I'll
>get into this a lil
>further below.

Then what do you think we've been doing for the past few days? Scratching our balls?

>The comment was not meant to
>be taken as the United
>States is the sole/top authority
>in the world. It
>means our system is the
>most successful in the history
>of the world. Bottom
>line. Therefore, why get
>rid of a good thing
>because others are jealous of
>it's success?

Because it's also done the most damage--socially, politically, and environmentally. It's true that the United States has been wildly successful in its two centuries of existence, but there's always a trade-off.

>Well what you want me to
>do, lie? You made
>that statement after your question
>because you know I never
>said I have hated "the
>people".

Then why the elitist "holier-than-thou" attitude?

>I do think they can govern
>themselves, but not each other.
> People are individuals.
>We are all born with
>individual thoughts, grow up having
>individual experiences, and we each
>have individual desires. Therefore,
>why try to clump everyone
>under one whole group?
>That doesn't make sense.

Oh, so you're special?

>So, when you allow "the people"
>to try to decide what's
>best for each other, instead
>of simply minimizing government to
>the point where people are
>individually in control of their
>own lives and own prosperity,
>then you are taking away
>the freedoms of the people
>who don't agree with the
>status quo.

Huh? What? Say that again?

Ever heard of something called the common good? Compromise? People do from time to time make concessions to each other so they don't end up killing each other.

>Government is/shouldn't be established as a
>national parent council. Government
>should be there to keep
>the nation together, and to
>prevent other people from taking
>away your human rights, along
>with your right to life,
>liberty, and property.

But that directly contradicts your premise that government should be minimized so that people are in control of their own prosperity. If I want to maximize profits, shouldn't there nothing to stop me from taking what I consider mine--and in unregulated capitalism, this means practically anything?

> Those
>ideals shouldn't be established by
>the fickle and wishy-washyness of
>the opinions of men, it
>should be based on something
>concrete, something that doesn't vary.
> What better way to
>do this than put it
>on paper for all to
>see and abide by?
>Then there is no question
>whatsoever about what the law
>is, or what the principles
>of that law are based
>on. Any future laws
>and acts should be based
>on those principles.

Oh, God...another legalist.

Ask any law student worth his or her tuition where law ultimately comes from. Laws are determined by people's opinion.

>When you base a nation on
>men and not laws, then
>what you're doing is weakening
>the laws, saying they should
>be scrapped for certain purposes.
> Laws are not flexible;
>they shouldn't be scrapped or
>overridden because of public opinion.

What are the laws without the people?

Abolition of slavery.
Women's right to vote.
Prohibition and the repeal thereof.

The laws were changed because the powers that be responded to public opinion and acted accordingly.

Also, it's possible for laws that have lost their irrelevance to be simply ignored. When was the last time you heard anyone being prosecuted for blasphemy? Several states still have statutes of blasphemy on the books.

> Law should be constant,
>whether you're on the right
>side of it or the
>wrong side of it.
>That way, everyone knows where
>the law stands, and don't
>have to worry about if
>a certain law only appeals
>to just them or appeals
>to everyone.

Then why do we have the courts? The way you make it sound, there shouldn't be any chance to defend ourselves since the law sets it down in black and white.

>I guess you can simply call
>me a free spirit.

Yeah...a free spirit on a high horse. }>

<SNIP>

>So, I will never approve of
>democracy. Maybe representation, but
>never legislation based on public
>opinion. I like people,
>but just because I like
>them doesn't mean I trust
>them to make accurate decisions

Okay, that's it. That's all I needed to know. The preceding drivel was just not necessary.

And guess what? You just done pissed me off. Because you just insinuated that I am incompetent, uninformed, and apathetic when it comes to social and political affairs. I'm taking this personally because I've been at the front lines of political struggles since I was a child--and for you to sit there and insult me by saying that I am not qualified to help determine where this country goes just makes my blood boil.

You're right--the masses do not know what's best for you, just as you don't know what's best for them. So, who the fuck are you to shit on us for trying to bring about some change? We're busting our asses here working for something that may or may not come--and here you are sitting around, looking down at us with contempt from your high horse, telling us that it's not worth the effort because we're MORONS!

I said it before and I'll say it again--you're all talk. Anybody can quote Tyler, Voltaire, or Sowell. The question is: have you done anything?

Think you have a stake in this country? Think again. Rewards come only to those who strive for them--I think we can agree on that.

You don't even know who Ayn Rand is. And you dare call yourself a libertarian. Whatever.

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"Iki ga tomaru kurai no
Amai kuchizuke wo shiyou yo
Hitokoto mo iranai sa
Tobikiri no ima wo
Yuuki wo kureta kimi ni
Tereteru baai ja nai kara
Kotoba yori mo honki na
La la la love song..." - Toshi Kubota

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/

--

Your San Francisco Giants: 4.26.2005 - 8.15.2005.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 06:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "RE: *Sigh* Since you called me out..."
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

>Then what do you think we've
>been doing for the past
>few days? Scratching our balls?

Hey, I dunno what you've been doing while typing...

Anyways I do appreciate your participation. The point was that more people aren't interested in talking about it, and at lengths at a time. Wasn't it ya boy Nader that said, "If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you."? I'm just turned on to politics. So sue me.

>Because it's also done the most
>damage--socially, politically, and environmentally. It's
>true that the United States
>has been wildly successful in
>its two centuries of existence,
>but there's always a trade-off.

The point is it's the most successful, which you just acknowledged.

>Ever heard of something called the
>common good? Compromise? People do
>from time to time make
>concessions to each other so
>they don't end up killing
>each other.

Who is to decide the common good? Who is to say that "the common good" is good for me? And you just criticized me for being elitist?
Also, compromising doesn't mean unaminous. Therefore that means people can still disagree on how those compromises are set up. And does every issue people dispute turn into violence? I haven't had the thought of killing you?

>But that directly contradicts your premise
>that government should be minimized
>so that people are in
>control of their own prosperity.
>If I want to maximize
>profits, shouldn't there nothing to
>stop me from taking what
>I consider mine--and in unregulated
>capitalism, this means practically anything?

That doesn't mean you have the right to take other people's freedoms away from them. That example is absurd and has nothing to do with capitalism. What you consider yours and what actually is yours is two different things.

>> Those
>>ideals shouldn't be established by
>>the fickle and wishy-washyness of
>>the opinions of men, it
>>should be based on something
>>concrete, something that doesn't vary.
>> What better way to
>>do this than put it
>>on paper for all to
>>see and abide by?
>>Then there is no question
>>whatsoever about what the law
>>is, or what the principles
>>of that law are based
>>on. Any future laws
>>and acts should be based
>>on those principles.
>
>Oh, God...another legalist.
>
>Ask any law student worth his
>or her tuition where law
>ultimately comes from. Laws are
>determined by people's opinion.

But it was of certain people's opinions though. It wasn't based on the opinions of today's majority or even the opinions of the majority then. Do laws need the support of the people in order to be effective? Sure. But to begin and base legislation by polls and popular opinion won't work. Minorities can cause as much rebellion as the majority.

>What are the laws without the
>people?

But not all people agree. People have different views on how their lives should be led. That's the point.

>Abolition of slavery.
>Women's right to vote.
>Prohibition and the repeal thereof.
>
>The laws were changed because the
>powers that be responded to
>public opinion and acted accordingly.

No. Absent of prohibition repeal, if there was a democratic referendum on those other three, I'd bet none of those would have went through. As I mentioned before to Korr, people were more interested in saving the Union than actually abolishing slavery. The South was more populated and has more states in favor of slavery than the North. I'd bet the South would have won a referendum hands down. As for women's right to vote, it's simple....white men were the only ones able to vote. Although it's understandable that some men were for it, I don't believe there was a majority of them. Abolition probably was based off of a majority of Christians. However, considering those strong Christian ties throughout US history, I'd say there was still a majority for keeping liquor illegal.

>Also, it's possible for laws that
>have lost their irrelevance to
>be simply ignored. When was
>the last time you heard
>anyone being prosecuted for blasphemy?
>Several states still have statutes
>of blasphemy on the books.

Actually I read about a woman that was arrested for saying goddammit in front of a child. There was another law passed in Mississippi last year in which one of the provisions was that men can be arrested for having erections in public. You'd be surprised how many laws from way back when are still being enforced, and some that are made even in this day by state governments. It mostly happens in the socially conservative South however.

>Then why do we have the
>courts? The way you make
>it sound, there shouldn't be
>any chance to defend ourselves
>since the law sets it
>down in black and white.

The courts interpret the rules based on that specific case. However if they find that the plaintiff is guilty, that doesn't mean he is let off the hook because "he didn't know". He still has to serve his punishment, no matter what.



>And guess what? You just done
>pissed me off.

So.

Because you
>just insinuated that I am
>incompetent, uninformed, and apathetic when
>it comes to social and
>political affairs.

Did I say you individually? No, unless you consider yourself the majority.

I'm taking this
>personally because I've been at
>the front lines of political
>struggles since I was a
>child--and for you to sit
>there and insult me by
>saying that I am not
>qualified to help determine where
>this country goes just makes
>my blood boil.

So? Does that mean you have the right to tell me how to live my life? No. Just as I don't have the right to tell you either. So you are NOT qualified to tell me how to run my life, nor the matters of this country. Now you may REPRESENT my districts interests in government, should you win a democratic election, but that doesn't mean that you, or government itself, should tell me how to live my private life, considering I don't obstruct or invade anyone elses. Your idea is true elitism.

>You're right--the masses do not know
>what's best for you, just
>as you don't know what's
>best for them. So, who
>the fuck are you to
>shit on us for trying
>to bring about some change?
>We're busting our asses here
>working for something that may
>or may not come--and here
>you are sitting around, looking
>down at us with contempt
>from your high horse, telling
>us that it's not worth
>the effort because we're MORONS!

Hey, reality bites doesn't it? No group of people can accurately know what's best for other people's private lives. If so, totalitarianism would actually be successful in this world. If anything you're busting your asses for the authoritarian right to rule someone else life. That's a right that you don't have, and hopefully, you never will.

>I said it before and I'll
>say it again--you're all talk.
>Anybody can quote Tyler, Voltaire,
>or Sowell. The question is:
>have you done anything?

I live my life to the fullest and I strive every day to be a better person than the day before. That's all I need to do.

>Think you have a stake in
>this country? Think again. Rewards
>come only to those who
>strive for them--I think we
>can agree on that.

You are right. And I will continue to strive for that stake. If not, there's no reason to live. Stalemating is not an option.

>You don't even know who Ayn
>Rand is. And you dare
>call yourself a libertarian. Whatever.

The most intelligent people allow their ideals to speak for themselves, and not let their ideals only speak for them. Maybe Rand is/was a libertarian thinker. I dunno. But I'd rather know his ideals than simply the person. I could care less about him personally.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Mon Aug-28-00 11:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "yes, I am replying to you"
In response to Reply # 22


          

>*sighs* Such is the problem with people today. >Important issues are too "mundane" for them, and >they rather gossip or clown around.

Thanks for appreciating the hours I've spent typing out replies to your opinions.

I said it was getting boring because it was getting repetitive, which is why I tried to change the tack of conversation a little bit.

>The comment was not meant to be taken as the >United States is the sole/top authority in the >world. It means our system is the most successful >in the history of the world. Bottom line.

After choosing not to address the obvious contradiction in your words ("national sovereignty" turns into "accept our system"), you continue to make statements that place you in the "typical American" category (sorry about your aspirations to individuality).

Nota: I'm trying not to stoop to the level of snide attacks. Please forgive me (sincerely) if I do.

What exactly is the US system the most succesful in? The most succesful in destroying the environment on a global scale? The most succesful in exploiting the labour of many for the benefit of the few? The most succesful in raising a generation of people who don't care (the very people you hate)? The most succesful in creating maintaining the world in an unprecedented state of insecurity?

I'm not saying "things were better before". I'm just asking what the US system (ironically, based on theories developed by Brits and Frogs) is the most succesful at. Making money for Bill Gates? Bringing me an amazing amount of pointless material goods? Providing millions of people with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?

>That's just how it is.

More of your vaunted libertarianism?

>I do think they can govern themselves, but not
>each other.

So why are people compelled to come together and form societies? Cos they're idiots?

>People are individuals. We are all born with >individual thoughts, grow up having individual >experiences, and we each have individual desires.

So the environment that is around you has no influence upon you? If that were the case, there would be no such thing as empathy, and I'm not sure I would be able to recognise (from an emotional standpoint) other people as human beings. It is because we have many things in common (to varying degrees depending on culture, etc.) that we can live together.

>Therefore, why try to clump everyone under one
>whole group?

Who just said that everyone is an individual? Why are you clumping everyone in one big group?

>Government should be there to keep the nation
>together, and to prevent other people from taking
<away your human rights, along with your right to
>life, liberty, and property.

This statement is great and true. I'm not quite sure what "keeping the nation together" means, but the rest is very cool.

>Those ideals shouldn't be established by the >fickle and wishy-washyness of the opinions of
>men, it should be based on something concrete,
>something that doesn't vary.

This is why I say you hate people. Plus you sound like the Vatican in the Middle Ages. What doesn't vary? God? No, what doesn't vary is...

> paper
>for all to see and abide by? Then there is no
>question whatsoever about what the law is, or
>what the principles of that law are based on.

Come on man. Who puts these ideals on paper? Men that are the product of there times.

>Laws are not flexible; they shouldn't be scrapped
>or overridden because of public opinion. Law >should be constant

More evidence of your people-hating. And massive silliness to boot. If the law were constant, Krewcial (sorry Krew) would own the both of us, and his girl-friend wouldn't be able to vote.

>don't have to worry about if a certain law only
>appeals to just them or appeals to everyone

If a law doesn't appeal to me, I can fight against it. However, in your system, the law never changes, thus I have no input into the laws I have to obey. Isn't that a dictatorship?

>I guess you can simply call me a free spirit

You guessed wrong.

>I feel I should be able to do what I want as long
>as I am not hurting others

This too is great (I do recognise when you say something true). However, do you realise that the way we (Westerners) live everyday hurts and has hurt millions of people around the globe? Or do you not care and say "That's for their government to take care of"?

>If my opinions and theories are against the >majority opinion, I want to know that the law
>protects my voice and my wishes as well as the >majority

Great. Freedom of speech. Never said I was against it. You however, believe that the opinions of the fickle, wishy-washy people should be ignored. But you don't hate the people.

>I'm sure you know I don't think the same way >anyone else does either

Actually, you'd be surprised.

>Am I not entitled to the same influence others >have? Why should they have direction over MY
>life?

The others (i.e. non-economists, non-businessmen and other non-"cognoscenti") should be ignored. Since you are none of the above (as far as I know), you should have no influence and should be ignored. This is the logical conclusion of your system.

> If you feel that charity funds should go over to
>help people in Rawanda, what's stopping you from
>pulling cash out of your pocket to make that
>happen? Do you have to force other people to do
>it also?

Have you ever been forced to donate to charity?
Didn't think so.
Maybe a more relevant example of what you are trying to say would be: Why should I (speaking of myself, as a member of the middle-class) be forced (through taxes) to pay for a hospital in some poor area of my country that I will never go to?
If that's what you're asking then I think you're an idiot. If that's not what you're asking, please correct me.

>If you don't believe in abortions, then don't
>have one. Why must you force other people not to
>also?

What exactly is the point of this whole rhetorical question tirade (hmmm... maybe I shouldn't criticise, I did one in this very post!)? Some people are campaigning to reduce freedom (anti-abortion). They can because they have freedom of speech. However, I disagree with them because they want to reduce individual freedoms.

>If you want to make more money, why can't you get
>it yourself?

Because they are lazy bums. And for no other reason whatsoever.

>Why must you force other people to give it up?

Damn lazy bums.

>When you make ideals laws, there are no ifs ands
>or buts; if you don't abide by it, you have to
>pay the consequences

I think from here on your post descends into nonsense and platitudes. It's not just you, most long-ass posts tend to turn to nonsense by the umpteenth paragraph, which is part of the reason they get boring. Hell, maybe I'm typing nonsense and platitudes right now.

>Why should the masses collectively have power
>over what everyone else does?

If you have freedom of speech and access to political power (i.e. democracy), then you can fight the masses. I think that is within the bounds of your own motto: "Get off your lazy butt and get to work". Failing that, with all these cheap plane tickets, you can just leave.

>"the people", as well-intentional as they may
>seem, do not know what's best for me, just as I
>and others don't know what's best for them

And yet we can all live under and abide by the same set of inflexible laws. How strange.

>They don't know how my money should be spent

Just say it: you don't want to pay taxes. Is that it?

>They don't know what is going on in domestic,
>national, and foreign affairs every minute.

And who does? And who should make decisions that involve the whole nation? A detached expert (or rather, "expert") who ignores whatever the stupid uninformed people may be asking for?

>I like people

No, you don't.

>just because I like them doesn't mean I trust
>them to make accurate decisions

I like you, I really do, it's just that I think you're a lazy, stupid, uniformed, irrational thief. But I gots love for ya.

Bonsoir.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 03:40 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
25. "RE: yes, I am replying to you"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

>What exactly is the US system
>the most succesful in?

What other country has been to the Moon?
Who is at the forefront of medicine, agriculture, manufacturing....

I could go on and on.

The
>most succesful in destroying the
>environment on a global scale?

Who? Probably the ancient Africans who turned the Saharan Forest into a desert. Or we could look to the Native Americans who changed the Great Forest into the Great Plains? Maybe the folks on Easter Island who cut down their trees in order to save themselves, who ultimately killed themselves. Perhaps Mexico or Japan? Maybe Western Europe before the Green Party?

>The most succesful in exploiting
>the labour of many for
>the benefit of the few?

Obviously we are talking about any country that has had a King or an Aristocracy, France, England, Ashanti Kingdom, .. Definitely not America.

>The most succesful in raising
>a generation of people who
>don't care (the very people
>you hate)?

We do not have a monopoly on that. IN fact that should be something commended. Our country has created an environment where the ills of the rest of the world aren't outside our doors everyday. The vast majority of Americans do not know what real hunger is. No American is worried about mortar shells or terrorist bombings.

The most succesful
>in creating maintaining the world
>in an unprecedented state of
>insecurity?

Who is insecure?

>I'm not saying "things were better
>before". I'm just asking what
>the US system (ironically, based
>on theories developed by Brits
>and Frogs) is the most
>succesful at.

A better question, and shorter list would be things that we are the least successful at.

Making money for
>Bill Gates? Bringing me an
>amazing amount of pointless material
>goods?

Cheap grain and meat is definitely pointless.

>Providing millions of people
>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?

What does Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, or Malaysia have to do with this?


>>I do think they can govern themselves, but not
>>each other.
>
>So why are people compelled to
>come together and form societies?
>Cos they're idiots?

Because most people do not know another way of life. No one asked me to join this society. I was born into it.

If you're talking about the so-called state of nature, no one has lived in that either.

>So the environment that is around
>you has no influence upon
>you?

That is not his argument. 2 kids from the worst ghetto in the states can have 2 completely different futures.

If that were the
>case, there would be no
>such thing as empathy, and
>I'm not sure I would
>be able to recognise (from
>an emotional standpoint) other people
>as human beings. It is
>because we have many things
>in common (to varying degrees
>depending on culture, etc.) that
>we can live together.

We live together because our culture forces us to. From the very beginning of life we are forced to include other people within our lives.

>>Therefore, why try to clump everyone under one
>>whole group?
>
>Who just said that everyone is
>an individual?

It is an axiom. How is everyone not an individual?

What really needs to be said is that all individuals are not going to agree on the right course of action.


>I'm not quite sure what
>"keeping the nation together" means,
>but the rest is very
>cool.

Civil War 1861-1865.

>>Those ideals shouldn't be established by the >fickle and wishy-washyness of the opinions of
>>men, it should be based on something concrete,
>>something that doesn't vary.

>What doesn't vary?
>God? No, what doesn't vary
>is...

People will always need food, shelter, and oxygen. That is only if they want to live.

>Come on man. Who puts these
>ideals on paper? Men that
>are the product of there
>times.

So ideals always change?

>>Laws are not flexible; they shouldn't be scrapped
>>or overridden because of public opinion. Law >should be constant

responding to Expertise.

Laws are flexible and should be overridden by public opinion.

>However, in your system,
>the law never changes, thus
>I have no input into
>the laws I have to
>obey. Isn't that a dictatorship?

Or a theocracy.

>This too is great (I do
>recognise when you say something
>true). However, do you realise
>that the way we (Westerners)
>live everyday hurts and has
>hurt millions of people around
>the globe?

How so?

>Have you ever been forced to
>donate to charity?

It's called foreign aid, social security, and welfare. My tax dollars go to all sorts of things I might, or might not approve of.

>Didn't think so.
>Maybe a more relevant example of
>what you are trying to
>say would be: Why should
>I (speaking of myself, as
>a member of the middle-class)
>be forced (through taxes) to
>pay for a hospital in
>some poor area of my
>country that I will never
>go to?

Exactly. Now you're coming around.

>Some people are
>campaigning to reduce freedom (anti-abortion).

You could say they are campaigning to increase freedom for the fetus.

>They can because they have
>freedom of speech. However, I
>disagree with them because they
>want to reduce individual freedoms.

It goes both ways. Most people would agree with choice, and most would also think that a 7 month old fetus is also a person. Most people just do not want to say that they are okay with murder, unless it's a innocent black man on death row. Call it what it is, and be okay with it.

>>Why must you force other people to give it up?
>
>Damn lazy bums.

There are all sorts of reasons to have transfer payments. One of which is security of the people in power. You go to other places where the poor do not have anything you start to see 'warring' factions.


>>Why should the masses collectively have power
>>over what everyone else does?

Because might makes right, even if that isn't right.

>If you have freedom of speech
>and access to political power
>(i.e. democracy), then you can
>fight the masses.

You can try and convince the masses, but unless you're pulling the strings you don't really have any power.
>>"the people", as well-intentional as they may
>>seem, do not know what's best for me, just as I
>>and others don't know what's best for them
>
>And yet we can all live
>under and abide by the
>same set of inflexible laws.
>How strange.

Americans wouldn't know revolution if it came to them in various forms and then were assasinated by the powers that be...

>>They don't know what is going on in domestic,
>>national, and foreign affairs every minute.
>
>And who does? And who should
>make decisions that involve the
>whole nation? A detached expert
>(or rather, "expert") who ignores
>whatever the stupid uninformed people
>may be asking for?

Or should you leave the uneducated masses with the nuclear launch controls?

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 10:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "RE: yes, I am replying to you"
In response to Reply # 25


          

>What other country has been to
>the Moon?
>Who is at the forefront of
>medicine, agriculture, manufacturing....
>

Yes there are good and bad aspects to the US system. They have done some great things, but it may be the case that the long-term cost of these great things is higher than their immediate benefit. Maybe, maybe not.

But as for your specific examples:
medecine: when pharmaceutical companies own genes, let's see how great that turns out to be.
agriculture: if we find out that the cocktail of GMOs and pesticides we eat are pretty damn unhealthy, let's see how everyone likes that
manufacturing: so you're proud that you're country works millions of South Asians to the bone?

>Who? Probably the ancient Africans who
>turned the Saharan Forest into
>a desert.

Climatic change made it a desert something like 10,000 years ago (it's been a long time since I read the figure, but I don't think it's any less than that). Do you know how big the Sahara is? I don't see how primitive axes and low population could turn it into a desert.

Or we
>could look to the Native
>Americans who changed the Great
>Forest into the Great Plains?

Don't know about that, can't comment.

> Maybe the folks on
>Easter Island who cut down
>their trees in order to
>save themselves, who ultimately killed
>themselves.

Is that equivalent to the environmental destruction caused by, say, daily automobile traffic?

Perhaps Mexico or
>Japan? Maybe Western Europe
>before the Green Party?
>

You guys need to stop talking about Europe cos you don't know the first thing about it.
And I didn't say no-one else destroys their environment.

>>The most succesful in exploiting
>>the labour of many for
>>the benefit of the few?
>
>Obviously we are talking about any
>country that has had a
>King or an Aristocracy, France,
>England, Ashanti Kingdom, ..
>Definitely not America.
>

This statement is so ridiculous. The UK had its colonies. The US highly improved that system greatly: it doesn't have to maintain colonies, simply exploit (or rather, help private companies exploit) "sovereign" countries.

>>The most succesful in raising
>>a generation of people who
>>don't care (the very people
>>you hate)?
>
>We do not have a monopoly
>on that. IN fact
>that should be something commended.
> Our country has created
>an environment where the ills
>of the rest of the
>world aren't outside our doors
>everyday. The vast majority
>of Americans do not know
>what real hunger is.

A. You didn't answer my question.
B. The vast majority of Americans do not know what real hunger is because nearly half of the world's population lives at or below the international poverty line ($1/day), because 4% of the world's population lives on 25% of its resources. Western wealth and 3rd World poverty are highly linked, but none of you seem willing to recognise that.

>No American is worried about
>mortar shells or terrorist bombings.

But a lot of them seem worried about getting shot on the street.
>
> The most succesful
>>in creating maintaining the world
>>in an unprecedented state of
>>insecurity?
>
>Who is insecure?
>

Ever heard of the Cold War?

>>I'm not saying "things were better
>>before". I'm just asking what
>>the US system (ironically, based
>>on theories developed by Brits
>>and Frogs) is the most
>>succesful at.
>
>A better question, and shorter list
>would be things that we
>are the least successful at.

>Bringing me an
>>amazing amount of pointless material
>>goods?
>
>Cheap grain and meat is definitely
>pointless.
>

Especially if it's going to kill or slowly poison me and my environment. Do you think that the extensive farming practiced in the US is actually good for the environment? That hormone-injected beef is good for humans?

>>Providing millions of people
>>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?
>
>What does Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea,
>or Malaysia have to do
>with this?
>

See above. And millions of Americans have demeaning and uninteresting jobs. My problem is (going off on a tangent expressing my ideals) that the more technology we have, the harder people work and more alienated they feel. Somehow that doesn't seem right to me. For me, progress would be for us to spend less and less time working at uninteresting jobs (although many people have interesting jobs they love) and more time doing what can truly enrich us.

>Because most people do not know
>another way of life.

Who knows a non-social life? Mowgli?

>No one asked me to
>join this society. I
>was born into it.
>
Whether or not you had a choice is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that your living in a society has influenced you (not determined you).

>If you're talking about the so-called
>state of nature, no one
>has lived in that either.
>
Did I mention the state of nature? And by the way, that's talking about non-social man. I'm talking about people's urge to form societies.
>
>>So the environment that is around
>>you has no influence upon
>>you?
>
>That is not his argument.
>2 kids from the worst
>ghetto in the states can
>have 2 completely different futures.
>
See above. Why do you refuse to admit that one's environment influences one's behavior?

>
> If that were the
>>case, there would be no
>>such thing as empathy, and
>>I'm not sure I would
>>be able to recognise (from
>>an emotional standpoint) other people
>>as human beings. It is
>>because we have many things
>>in common (to varying degrees
>>depending on culture, etc.) that
>>we can live together.
>
>We live together because our culture
>forces us to. From
>the very beginning of life
>we are forced to include
>other people within our lives.
>
Not because we actually need each other and because we are alike. Too bad you didn't pop out of the air fully-formed so you could live your solitary life.
>
>It is an axiom. How
>is everyone not an individual?

What does saying everyone is an indivdual mean? We all have individual traits (some are more individual than others), but we have a lot of common traits too, which we acquire from the people and information around us: society.

>What really needs to be said
>is that all individuals are
>not going to agree on
>the right course of action.

And? Are you saying we can't live together? I don't agree with my girl-friend on every single thing, yet we mysteriously manage to live together. The secret? Compromise, understanding and freedom.

>Civil War 1861-1865.

Wasn't that about two sides trying to impose their viewpoint? One side won, one side lost.

>People will always need food, shelter,
>and oxygen. That is
>only if they want to
>live.

Those aren't ideals. They're necessities. Which a lot of people around the world don't have enough of (especially clean water). But that has nothing to do with you.

>
>>Come on man. Who puts these
>>ideals on paper? Men that
>>are the product of there
>>times.
>
>So ideals always change?

They change in the sense that they are re-configured to fit in with new time-frames. For a long time those time-frames changed very, very slowly. Now they change very quickly.

>Laws are flexible and should be
>overridden by public opinion.

Finally, some common sense!

>>However, do you realise
>>that the way we (Westerners)
>>live everyday hurts and has
>>hurt millions of people around
>>the globe?
>
>How so?

This question betrays your ignorance of the world beyond the US and American influence in it. Sorry to say this, but do some reading.

>>Have you ever been forced to
>>donate to charity?
>
>It's called foreign aid, social security,
>and welfare.

On average, for every dollar of foreign aid given, about 8 or 9 are taken. Plus, foreign aid is used to control recipient countries. If that's charity... Social security ain't charity. You pay for it so you can use it when you need to.

>My tax
>dollars go to all sorts
>of things I might, or
>might not approve of.

Yeah, like financing dictatorships and buying ever more weapons.

>>Didn't think so.
>>Maybe a more relevant example of
>>what you are trying to
>>say would be: Why should
>>I (speaking of myself, as
>>a member of the middle-class)
>>be forced (through taxes) to
>>pay for a hospital in
>>some poor area of my
>>country that I will never
>>go to?
>
>Exactly. Now you're coming around.
>
I like the selective quoting of what I wrote.

>It goes both ways. Most
>people would agree with choice,
>and most would also think
>that a 7 month old
>fetus is also a person.

You can abort at 7 months?!? In France it's limited to 3. After that you can't abort. Mainly because it becomes very dangerous for the woman. But a 7 month old feotus could be made to survive if it were born then, so it should be considered a person. But aborting at 7 months is just crazy.

> Most people just do
>not want to say that
>they are okay with murder,

Abortion is a form of murder, which is why everything should be done to avoid it, but comparing aborting a one month old non-concious mass of cells to an innocent black man on death row is insulting.

>You can try and convince the
>masses, but unless you're pulling
>the strings you don't really
>have any power.

Then how do you explain that women got the vote? That apartheid ended, that desegregation happened.

>Americans wouldn't know revolution if it
>came to them in various
>forms and then were assasinated
>by the powers that be...
>
I'm not sure what statement this is referring to, but it might well be true.

>Or should you leave the uneducated
>masses with the nuclear launch
>controls?

I wouldn't trust most of our "leaders" with the nuclear launch controls in a real pressure situation.
Common sense seems to say that having weapons that can destroy our planet in minutes isn't very smart in the first place.


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 04:35 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
43. "RE: yes, I am replying to you"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

>>What other country has been to
>>the Moon?
>>Who is at the forefront of
>>medicine, agriculture, manufacturing....
>>
>
>Yes there are good and bad
>aspects to the US system.

Thank you for admitting it. Now we're getting somewhere.

>They have done some great
>things, but it may be
>the case that the long-term
>cost of these great things
>is higher than their immediate
>benefit.

The proliferation of the automobile will definitely have some long term effects, both positive and negative. There are lots of inventions that have had that effect over time. I would say the printing press and the spread of literacy has brought lots of harm to the world. Islam and Christianity should be dropped in there too.


>medecine: when pharmaceutical companies own genes,
>let's see how great that
>turns out to be.

Pharmaceutical companies can't own genes. The best they can do is patent specific genes for a period of 17 years. Most of which will be spent in development of some drug. And considering that there are millions upon millions of genes.

More importantly, just because someone brings something to market, doesn't mean everyone can take advantage(or abuse) the product.

>agriculture: if we find out that
>the cocktail of GMOs and
>pesticides we eat are pretty
>damn unhealthy, let's see how
>everyone likes that

The big question is if. We've been genetically modifiying food for thousands of years. We called it grafting back in the day. The most damaging study done on gmo's was about caterpillars suffering some ill-effects.

>manufacturing: so you're proud that you're
>country works millions of South
>Asians to the bone?

My country doesn't do that. American companies are attracted to cheap labor. American companies often do not own the factories, but contract it out. That's why Polo and Gap can be made in the same place. The folks don't unionize because of the greed and control of foreign governments. Furthermore, Nike doesn't employ 99% of the Indonesian workforce. Apparently other folks find something else to do.

How do you explain the other workers in these South Asian countries that do not work for American imperialists?

>>Who? Probably the ancient Africans who
>>turned the Saharan Forest into
>>a desert.
>
>Climatic change made it a desert
>something like 10,000 years ago
>(it's been a long time
>since I read the figure,
>but I don't think it's
>any less than that). Do
>you know how big the
>Sahara is? I don't see
>how primitive axes and low
>population could turn it into
>a desert.

It's not axes. It's fire.

>Is that equivalent to the environmental
>destruction caused by, say, daily
>automobile traffic?

If you take into account the so-called greenhouse gas effect, sure.

>This statement is so ridiculous. The
>UK had its colonies. The
>US highly improved that system
>greatly: it doesn't have to
>maintain colonies, simply exploit (or
>rather, help private companies exploit)
>"sovereign" countries.

The elites of countries often work hand in hand with private Americans. The people always have a choice of electing/overthrowing their government. Or mabye a more revolutionary idea, working somewhere else. At some point, many folks who work in factories decided farming wasn't where it was at.

And please don't tell me that these workers do not have a choice. Irian Jaya is not a Nike bedroom community.

>>>The most succesful in raising
>>>a generation of people who
>>>don't care (the very people
>>>you hate)?
>>
>>We do not have a monopoly
>>on that. IN fact
>>that should be something commended.
>> Our country has created
>>an environment where the ills
>>of the rest of the
>>world aren't outside our doors
>>everyday. The vast majority
>>of Americans do not know
>>what real hunger is.
>
>A. You didn't answer my question.

It was addresed to Expertise. I don't hate the people.

>B. The vast majority of Americans
>do not know what real
>hunger is because nearly half
>of the world's population lives
>at or below the international
>poverty line ($1/day), because 4%
>of the world's population lives
>on 25% of its resources.

That doesn't make sense at all. American farms produce enough food for more than our population.

>Western wealth and 3rd World
>poverty are highly linked, but
>none of you seem willing
>to recognise that.

The vast majority of western wealth is circular. Poor people give it to rich people in some way or fashion. In cases of G-8 nations have export surpluses, it is to other G-8 nations.

Show me causation in a specific example.

>>No American is worried about
>>mortar shells or terrorist bombings.
>
>But a lot of them seem
>worried about getting shot on
>the street.

Few of them are actually in that danger though. Lots of Americans worry about the stranger with a gun and some baggy jeans because our media is incredibly biased.

>> The most succesful
>>>in creating maintaining the world
>>>in an unprecedented state of
>>>insecurity?
>>
>>Who is insecure?
>>
>
>Ever heard of the Cold War?

Ever hear that it's over.

>>Cheap grain and meat is definitely
>>pointless.
>>
>
>Especially if it's going to kill
>or slowly poison me and
>my environment.

How do you figure that farming is going to poison you and your environment. If anyone is concerned about staying green, it's farmers. They live on the land, so they won't poison it.

Do you think
>that the extensive farming practiced
>in the US is actually
>good for the environment?

I won't even go into the environmental aspects of farming. Is it preferable to let people starve?

>That
>hormone-injected beef is good for
>humans?

The argument that it brings on menses at an earlier age has not been proven.

>See above. And millions of Americans
>have demeaning and uninteresting jobs.

And they do not have to work them. There are lots of starving artists out there who would love the company. The fact that boring jobs exist is not a problem with the economy. Perhaps some people do not find their primary identity in work. Perhaps some people work a 40 hour job for a paycheck and find fulfillment in their families or in their churches.

>My problem is (going off
>on a tangent expressing my
>ideals) that the more technology
>we have, the harder people
>work and more alienated they
>feel.

They work the same amount but produce more. It's Greenspans wish. Increased productivity without an increase in wage pressure.

Alienation from work is another issue altogether. That is more a function of organization than technology. As management breaks people up into divisions and then divides them into cubicles, putting them farther and farther away from the end item, and supplementing a real relationship with ideas like "team building", you then start to see alienation. It is relatively a modern problem.

Somehow that doesn't seem
>right to me. For me,
>progress would be for us
>to spend less and less
>time working at uninteresting jobs
>(although many people have interesting
>jobs they love) and more
>time doing what can truly
>enrich us.

I live in America. I have a Protestant work ethic. I get my identity from work. I am less of a person if I have a less prestigious job. I would prefer to be a low paid government employee than a high paid automotive technician. Etc...

In essence you would have to attack the American psyche in order to get at what truly enriches us. Most Americans believe that it is work.

>>Because most people do not know
>>another way of life.
>
>Who knows a non-social life? Mowgli?

Some folks leave society. Teddy Kazinsky, the unabomber, comes to mind. Ted was also pretty racist based on my reading of the manifesto, but that's a discussion for another time.

>
>>No one asked me to
>>join this society. I
>>was born into it.
>>
>Whether or not you had a
>choice is irrelevant. The fact
>of the matter is that
>your living in a society
>has influenced you (not determined
>you).

I'm not arguing that it hasn't.

>I'm talking about people's urge
>to form societies.

Is it organic or mechanical?

>See above. Why do you refuse
>to admit that one's environment
>influences one's behavior?

I'm not saying it doesn't. But for most it comes down to personal choice.


>Not because we actually need each
>other and because we are
>alike. Too bad you didn't
>pop out of the air
>fully-formed so you could live
>your solitary life.

I'm not sure if I would want that.

>>It is an axiom. How
>>is everyone not an individual?
>
>What does saying everyone is an
>indivdual mean?

It means that each person is unique. Each person is different from another person. They share commonalities though.

>>What really needs to be said
>>is that all individuals are
>>not going to agree on
>>the right course of action.
>
>And? Are you saying we can't
>live together?

Ultimately nope. Folks hate each other. You get past a nuclear family, and things start to break down. You name the group, I can show you some hate. It happens within families, extended families, friends, classes, races, nations.

I don't agree
>with my girl-friend on every
>single thing, yet we mysteriously
>manage to live together. The
>secret? Compromise, understanding and freedom.

You don't have real freedom in a committed relationship. you give up some of your freedom in order to have that relationship.

>Those aren't ideals. They're necessities. Which
>a lot of people around
>the world don't have enough
>of (especially clean water). But
>that has nothing to do
>with you.

Exactly. The fact that lots of nations do not have a water infrastructure is unrelated to the fact that Americans do. The Romans built aqueducts without major technology. I've seen plenty of wastewater treatements that are low tech. You don't need capital investment for clean water.

As far as food goes, in many places there is plenty of food. It's just too damn expensive for folks to buy. Unrelated to the American economy.

>>Laws are flexible and should be
>>overridden by public opinion.
>
>Finally, some common sense!

Ad hominem...

\>>How so?
>
>This question betrays your ignorance of
>the world beyond the US
>and American influence in it.

Please regale me with your tales of Shell oil in Nigeria, or ITT copper mines in Latin America, or Union Carbide in India.

You still haven't addressed why you think Americans are to blame for this. Private American corporations have to deal with local government in order to do business. American corporations don't open ports and enslave workers with guns, anymore that is. No one forces people to go to factories. Unlike back in the day, westerners do not rouse afrikans from their sleep and put them into ships.

>Sorry to say this, but
>do some reading.

another ad hominen attack. What makes you folks on the Left think that I haven't done my reading. If I hear another person here try to do Noam Chomsky or Jello Biafra impression... Bring some arguments to the table.

>On average, for every dollar of
>foreign aid given, about 8
>or 9 are taken.

How do you figure. Please point me to your sources.

>Plus,
>foreign aid is used to
>control recipient countries.

Just like credit card companies control americans. Can you resist credit? Can you learn to delay gratification?

In essence 3rd world countries want the western lifestyle without having the economic infrastructure to support it. Westerners lend them the money, hoping that things will turn around (yeah right). But if you don't have a health, education, physical infrastructure, you can not get into the race with the G-8 nations.

When folks don't want to live like the west, how is their lifestyle? Take a look at the South Pacific.

>If that's
>charity... Social security ain't charity.
>You pay for it so
>you can use it when
>you need to.

You don't understand social security then. I pay taxes so my grandparents can get a check. It doesn't go into an account earmarked for me. (although you can find out how much you've contributed)

>>My tax
>>dollars go to all sorts
>>of things I might, or
>>might not approve of.
>
>Yeah, like financing dictatorships and buying
>ever more weapons.

Weapons are important. They push research. Without weapons we wouldn't have the computer, or countless other nifty things

>>>go to?
>>
>>Exactly. Now you're coming around.
>>
>I like the selective quoting of
>what I wrote.

you're welcome.

>>It goes both ways. Most
>>people would agree with choice,
>>and most would also think
>>that a 7 month old
>>fetus is also a person.
>
>You can abort at 7 months?!?

In some states you can abort up until the baby is born. Finding a doctor to do so will be a problem. Actually finding a doctor who will perform an abortion is difficult in and of itself.

Contrast this with Japan, who kept the pill illegal so that abortions would still be lucrative.

>In France it's limited to
>3. After that you can't
>abort. Mainly because it becomes
>very dangerous for the woman.

You need stats on that. Abortion is not like getting a mole removed and complications can plague it at any stage.

>But a 7 month old
>feotus could be made to
>survive if it were born
>then, so it should be
>considered a person.

People can do that at 6 months now.

But aborting
>at 7 months is just
>crazy.

Some people don't want children.

>> Most people just do
>>not want to say that
>>they are okay with murder,
>
>Abortion is a form of murder,
>which is why everything should
>be done to avoid it,

Why? We murder people everyday. Everytime someone comes up with a new car design they know that a certain percentage of people are going to die. There is a whole industry around these facts.

>but comparing aborting a one
>month old non-concious mass of
>cells to an innocent black
>man on death row is
>insulting.

Life is life. Is it okay to kill off mentally retarded folks, people in vegetative states, anyone not fit to walk and think for themselves?

>>You can try and convince the
>>masses, but unless you're pulling
>>the strings you don't really
>>have any power.
>
>Then how do you explain that
>women got the vote?

Good question.

That
>apartheid ended, that desegregation happened.

Desegregation never really happened. But the person that pulled those strings was Lyndon Baines Johnson. MLK, SNCC, CORE, didn't write any laws. (we could talk about NAACP legal defense fund later)

>>Or should you leave the uneducated
>>masses with the nuclear launch
>>controls?
>
>I wouldn't trust most of our
>"leaders" with the nuclear launch
>controls in a real pressure
>situation.

so you would prefer a national referenda to launch?

>Common sense seems to say that
>having weapons that can destroy
>our planet in minutes isn't
>very smart in the first
>place.

You do what you have to do to survive. If someone threatens you, you don't back down. It's the American way.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 06:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "round and round we go..."
In response to Reply # 43


          

>>They have done some great
>>things, but it may be
>>the case that the long-term
> I
>would say the printing press
>and the spread of literacy
>has brought lots of harm
>to the world.

Really? like what, Mein Kampf?
I'm talking on balance. Literacy is a great advance for mankind.

>>medecine: when pharmaceutical companies own genes,
>>let's see how great that
>>turns out to be.

>Pharmaceutical companies can't own genes.
>The best they can do
>is patent specific genes for
>a period of 17 years.
> Most of which will
>be spent in development of
>some drug. And considering
>that there are millions upon
>millions of genes.

It's interesting that you find it so uncontroversial that private companies should own parts of human life.

>>agriculture: if we find out that
>>the cocktail of GMOs and
>>pesticides we eat are pretty
>>damn unhealthy, let's see how
>>everyone likes that
>
>The big question is if.
>We've been genetically modifiying food
>for thousands of years.
>We called it grafting back
>in the day.

Yeah, but cross-breeding to make new species is somewhat different from splicing fish DNA into corn.

>The
>most damaging study done on
>gmo's was about caterpillars suffering
>some ill-effects.

I'd rather they be held off the market until proven safe, or at least we should clearly know what we are getting, which companies (and WTO) oppose.

>
>>manufacturing:

What you basically say in your reply is "What's wrong with exploiting people when their own government isn't going to protect them?" Which, to me, means that YOU consider these people inferior to yourself. You wouldn't accept those same working conditions (especially with no prospect of advancement), why should they have to?

>It's not axes. It's fire.

They burnt the expanse that is now the Sahara in such a way that it would never regrow again? Where are you getting this info from?
1) Pull out an atlas and check out how big the Sahara desert is (and notice the desertic band that stretches from West Africa through to the Middle East. Was all that burnt down?).
2) Plants grow on volanic islands because the cooled lava contains the minerals they need. Farmers do slash-and-burn because it provides for fertile soil. Burning such a huge forest into a desert would imply vast means to keep fires going for years and years without discontinuing. Without ever letting anything grow back. Does that seem feasible to you?

>>Is that equivalent to the environmental
>>destruction caused by, say, daily
>>automobile traffic?
>
>If you take into account the
>so-called greenhouse gas effect, sure.

Another great piece of selective quoting. I was responding to the point about Easter Islanders cutting down all the trees.

>The elites of countries often work
>hand in hand with private
>Americans. The people always
>have a choice of electing/overthrowing
>their government.

That's the cycle that goes on far too much in many countries and helps to keep them down. They have no solid base to build up a solid country, and both the corrupt leaders, and especially the foreign governments/companies like it that way.

>Or mabye
>a more revolutionary idea, working
>somewhere else.

Maybe they can make more money where they are than elsewhere. However, that is not a reason to hold them for ransom and keep working conditions and such extremely poor.

>And please don't tell me that
>these workers do not have
>a choice. Irian Jaya
>is not a Nike bedroom
>community.

What is a bedroom community? And I didn't say that they didn't have a choice. However, a choice between exploitation and even greater poverty is not much of a choice. Also remember that a lot of these places are not the West ("the land of opportunity").

>>B. The vast majority of Americans
>>do not know what real
>>hunger is because nearly half
>>of the world's population lives
>>at or below the international
>>poverty line ($1/day), because 4%
>>of the world's population lives
>>on 25% of its resources.
>
>That doesn't make sense at all.
> American farms produce enough
>food for more than our
>population.

So why are so many people around the world starving? There's more than enough food. The EU would rather let food rot than sell it cheap. And you can check my stats in any world development review.

>The vast majority of western wealth
>is circular.

The vast majority of western wealth was made possible due to colonialism and slavery. That system has been refined to modern-day capitalism. You think that 20% of the world's population lives on 80% of global GNP simply because they were the best in a trade game between honest business-men?

>Poor people
>give it to rich people
>in some way or fashion.

And that is right? I guess it's fine when you're the rich person and can make it seem like it's what's best for the poor person.

>Show me causation in a specific
>example.

>>Ever heard of the Cold War?
>
>Ever hear that it's over.

Ever heard of the Gulf War?
Ever heard that it's not over?
One example among many of the US imposing insecurity. Not that they are the only one's doing it: France recently sided with a former dictator and aided him in overthrowing the democratically elected president of the Congo-Brazzaville, Pascal Lissouba, to reclaim the post he had owned for 30 years.


>How do you figure that farming
>is going to poison you
>and your environment. If
>anyone is concerned about staying
>green, it's farmers. They
>live on the land, so
>they won't poison it.

Most farmers don't give a fuck about the environment. Just like most business-men. Do you know how much topsoil is lost every year in the US wheat growing states? How much pollution cattle cause? How bad pesticides et al. are for the environment?

>Is it preferable to let
>people starve?

There are many ways of farming without damaging the environment. Unfortunately they don't generate huge corporate profits, and are brushed aside. Even when those systems are already in place and functioning, cf. the imposition of GM rice in India over functional traditional means.

>The argument that it brings on
>menses at an earlier age
>has not been proven.

I'm not talking about a particular disease. I'm talking about the general bad state of the mass-produced food we eat. Not only does it taste like crap compared to the real thing (obviously, if you've never tasted a real tomato, you won't be clamouring for any), but I don't think that eating beef laden with steriods, or having eaten ground-up animals (the cause of BSE) is going to be beneficial to your health.

It's great that you find that vast pools of human talent going to waste in jobs that don't interest them is not a problem. Maybe people could take care of their kids better if they didn't have to kill their minds at work for the better part of the day. Maybe they could even take time to read and be a bit more active, so as to qualify for Expertise's definition of a citizen. Maybe they could learn to play an instrument and contribute something more useful than the umpteenth pointless disposable good that they don't care about.

>Increased productivity without
>an increase in wage pressure.

Translation: work harder, earn the same, companies increase profits, and lay off as much as they can, the remaining people work harder...

>alienation. It is relatively
>a modern problem.

It's not that recent. Marx talked about it a lot.

I would prefer
>to be a low paid
>government employee than a high
>paid automotive technician.

Why is that?
Look, I think that "good" work is one in which you can express your individuality. When I was stacking shelves, or counting items in a warehouse, I felt that any fool could do that job. That's why I consider those jobs demeaning. There is nothing to be brought to them, and very little to take out of them. You don't, and can't, care about what you are producing. Then again, if someone feels they are truly fulfilling himself by stacking super-market shelves, that's great.

>Some folks leave society. Teddy
>Kazinsky, the unabomber, comes to
>mind.

Great example.

>>I'm talking about people's urge
>>to form societies.
>
>Is it organic or mechanical?

Please explain your question.

>I'm not saying it doesn't.
>But for most it comes
>down to personal choice.

I had an answer to this, but I'm not going to bother with it, because Expertise and yourself will just give your pointless "That's life, roll with it." answer

>It means that each person is
>unique. Each person is
>different from another person.
>They share commonalities though.

As you like to say, "Now we're getting somewhere". (even though we're not, really).

>Ultimately nope. Folks hate each
>other.

Don't say it like it's a fact. Not everyone ascribes to Hobbes.


>You don't have real freedom in
>a committed relationship. you
>give up some of your
>freedom in order to have
>that relationship.

Should we start a debate about what freedom is? Briefly, rules don't necessarily reduce freedom. My freedom to shoot you in the street was taken away, but everyone's freedom to live was enhanced. I may have given up (more or less out of free will) the freedom to sleep around, but I gained many other freedoms. Like the freedom to come home late and not have to cook a meal for myself .

>Exactly. The fact that lots
>of nations do not have
>a water infrastructure is unrelated
>to the fact that Americans
>do.

As I said before, Western wealth and Southern poverty are co-dependent, can't have one without the other.

The Romans built
>aqueducts without major technology.

That was the highest technology of the time. They were very advanced.

>I've seen plenty of wastewater
>treatements that are low tech.
> You don't need capital
>investment for clean water.

Then you should go to these countries and tell them that, cos they're obviously too stupid to do it for themselves.

>Please regale me with your tales
>of Shell oil in Nigeria,
>or ITT copper mines in
>Latin America, or Union Carbide
>in India.
>
>You still haven't addressed why you
>think Americans are to blame
>for this.

Companies and gov'ts are to blame because they actively participate in this (not just US). We are to blame because we passively participate in this (and yet are essential to the processes).

>Private American
>corporations have to deal with
>local government in order to
>do business. American corporations
>don't open ports and enslave
>workers with guns, anymore that
>is.

Are you sure about that? And why not, because they suddenly turned good-hearted?

>westerners do not rouse
>afrikans from their sleep and
>put them into ships.

Hell no, they pay for their own plane ticket now. Or better yet, stay where they are, consume your goods and sell you cheap stuff.

>>On average, for every dollar of
>>foreign aid given, about 8
>>or 9 are taken.
>
>How do you figure. Please
>point me to your sources.
>
Check out http://www.jubilee2000uk.org
quotes:
"Each year developing countries pay the West nine times more in debt repayments than they receive in grants."
"Africa spends four times as much on debt repayment as she does on healthcare."
Guess who all that money is owed to?

> But if you don't
>have a health, education, physical
>infrastructure, you can not get
>into the race with the
>G-8 nations.

If you've been pillaged for 100s of years, it kind of makes things harder.

>
>When folks don't want to live
>like the west, how is
>their lifestyle? Take a
>look at the South Pacific.

"The west is supreme, our lifestyle is the best", is what you are saying.

> I pay taxes so
>my grandparents can get a
>check. It doesn't go
>into an account earmarked for
>me. (although you can find
>out how much you've contributed)

True, I was a bit quick in my writing. But do you consider that charity? I don't. Making sure that old people who've worked all their lives don't end their days in poverty isn't charity.

>Weapons are important. They push
>research. Without weapons we wouldn't
>have the computer, or countless
>other nifty things

nifty things like countless wars? Yes, military research is often the basis for everyday technology (mobile phones, to name one). I don't see how that justifies them. Especially as most military around the world ain't produced shit but body-bags.

>In some states you can abort
>up until the baby is
>born.

That is completely stupid and pointless.

>You need stats on that.

Well, that's the reason. Do I really have to go look for medical evidence just to carry on an internet debate?

>Abortion is not like getting
>a mole removed and complications
>can plague it at any
>stage.

Obviously, but there are more risks at 8 months than at 2.

>Life is life. Is it
>okay to kill off mentally
>retarded folks, people in vegetative
>states, anyone not fit to
>walk and think for themselves?

Did I say it was? However, the foetus is in the unique position of not actually being an independent entity. Thus the mother has full control of it and can decide what she does with it.

>so you would prefer a national
>referenda to launch?

Why not? That way I doubt we'd ever use them offensively.

>You do what you have to
>do to survive.

If you have to destroy the planet to survive, then you do that?

If
>someone threatens you, you don't
>back down. It's the
>American way.

And the rest of the world is just a bunch of bitch-ass pussies.


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 10:16 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
48. "RE: round and round we go..."
In response to Reply # 45


  

          


>Really? like what, Mein Kampf?

The Bible.

>It's interesting that you find it
>so uncontroversial that private companies
>should own parts of human
>life.

They don't own parts of human life. What they own is the right to develop drugs from a certain part of the human genome. There is no ownership of my personal gene for the grey hair amongst my locks. In essence they own a plot of land in the middle of nowhere hoping that the federal highway system will come through and buy it.

>Yeah, but cross-breeding to make new
>species is somewhat different from
>splicing fish DNA into corn.

It's slower and less effective. It has to be done. If people are starving all over the world because they can't grow food, this is my answer.

>
>>The
>>most damaging study done on
>>gmo's was about caterpillars suffering
>>some ill-effects.
>
>I'd rather they be held off
>the market until proven safe,

So you would make people starve for an additional 20 years? Kill millions to save a few hundred thousand?

It is a opportunity cost question. How much are you willing to risk for the greater good.

>or at least we should
>clearly know what we are
>getting, which companies (and WTO)
>oppose.

Precisely because of luddites afraid of technology.

>>
>>>manufacturing:
>
>What you basically say in your
>reply is "What's wrong with
>exploiting people when their own
>government isn't going to protect
>them?"

There is not exploitation. It is a loaded word. If the work opportunities in a place offers wages at a certain level and an Western corporation builds a plant there in order to take advantage of those already in place conditions why is it called exploitation.

Which, to me, means
>that YOU consider these people
>inferior to yourself.

They live at a different standard of living. Things I take for granted, constant electricity, air conditioning, clean water, cable tv are luxuries in other countries. You seem to be making the argument that American business should be recreating the American Suburban lifestyle everywhere that they have factories.

That sounds crazy to me. In essence you believe the West should make every country in the world into a suburb.

You wouldn't
>accept those same working conditions
>(especially with no prospect of
>advancement), why should they have
>to?

They don't have to. There are many other opportunities to make a living in those countries. I would not be suprised that all the manufacturing/factory jobs were just as sweatshop like. But being a fisherman or a farmer tends to be harder work and longer hours. What other opportunities does a person in that situation actually have? Furthermore should it be the west's responsibility to broaden those horizons.

Do they have a right to a Western way of life?

>>It's not axes. It's fire.
>
>They burnt the expanse that is
>now the Sahara in such
>a way that it would
>never regrow again? Where are
>you getting this info from?

I'll bring you a link.

>1) Pull out an atlas and
>check out how big the
>Sahara desert is (and notice
>the desertic band that stretches
>from West Africa through to
>the Middle East. Was all
>that burnt down?).

Deserts just don't happen, they grow over time through misuse of land.

>2) Plants grow on volanic islands
>because the cooled lava contains
>the minerals they need.

I don't remember nitrates being in lava, but I can check my geology books. It's academic anyway.

Farmers
>do slash-and-burn because it provides
>for fertile soil.

The method is inefficient because the land becomes fallow soon after one or 2 planting seasons.

>Without ever letting anything grow
>back. Does that seem feasible
>to you?

I'll get you the data.

>Another great piece of selective quoting.

I do what I can.

>I was responding to the
>point about Easter Islanders cutting
>down all the trees.

And that's what I meant.

>That's the cycle that goes on
>far too much in many
>countries and helps to keep
>them down.

So choosing your own government by way of force keeps countries down? Down from what?

> They have no
>solid base to build up
>a solid country,

Build it into? A place with stoplights and convenience stores?

and both
>the corrupt leaders, and especially
>the foreign governments/companies like it
>that way.

They benefit from it, but they would also benefit from a US minded populace who lets the politicians and businessmen take care of everything. US elites have a much better way of dealing with dissidents, it's called freedom of the press. You can publish all sorts of damaging information, but it gets washed away in a sea of information.

>Maybe they can make more money
>where they are than elsewhere.

So they exchange good working conditions for more money. So in essence greed keeps them down.

>However, that is not a
>reason to hold them for
>ransom and keep working conditions
>and such extremely poor.

It's all relative.

>>And please don't tell me that
>>these workers do not have
>>a choice. Irian Jaya
>>is not a Nike bedroom
>>community.
>
>What is a bedroom community?

A bedroom community is a suburb where workers live, which is away from their place of business. Like places outside of the Bay Area in san francisco are mostly residential places with few real productive industries. The folks then commute to their jobs in other locales.

And
>I didn't say that they
>didn't have a choice. However,
>a choice between exploitation and
>even greater poverty is not
>much of a choice.

It would be just poverty without the American corporations there.

>Also
>remember that a lot of
>these places are not the
>West ("the land of opportunity").

Every place is a land of opportunity. As long as people have desires you have an opportunity.

>So why are so many people
>around the world starving?

They don't have access to food. They have drought. It costs a lot to move tons of grain around the world.

There's
>more than enough food. The
>EU would rather let food
>rot than sell it cheap.

It's to keep their farmers working. It has political expediency, it doesn't make sense from a humanitarian stand point.

>>The vast majority of western wealth
>>is circular.
>
>The vast majority of western wealth
>was made possible due to
>colonialism and slavery.

How does the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, benefit from colonialism and slavery? Outside of the fact that he has white privilege, so do many of the posters on Okay Player.

That system
>has been refined to modern-day
>capitalism. You think that 20%
>of the world's population lives
>on 80% of global GNP
>simply because they were the
>best in a trade game
>between honest business-men?

Gross National Product does not equal all of the resources in the world. Somethings aren't a resource unless you have use for them. If I have uranium in my hills, it is useless to me unless I can get it refined and made into nuclear fuel for my nuclear power plant to serve the power needs of my community.

>
>>Poor people
>>give it to rich people
>>in some way or fashion.
>
>And that is right?

In general that's how it works. Folks benefit from the labor of others.

I guess
>it's fine when you're the
>rich person and can make
>it seem like it's what's
>best for the poor person.

They don't have a choice.

>
>>Show me causation in a specific
>>example.
>
>>>Ever heard of the Cold War?
>>
>>Ever hear that it's over.
>
>Ever heard of the Gulf War?

Yes. Not related to a nuclear threat. It was a fight over an actual American interest, cheap oil, unlike Somalia or Bosnia. Did Saddam have a legitimate interest in bring Kuwait back into the fold?

>Most farmers don't give a fuck
>about the environment.

How do you figure.

Just like
>most business-men. Do you know
>how much topsoil is lost
>every year in the US
>wheat growing states?

Loss of topsoil is a natural consequence of farming.

How much
>pollution cattle cause?

Much of which can be recycled for biomass energy or fertilizer. Unless you're referring to the CO2 given off as a result of them living.

How bad
>pesticides et al. are for
>the environment?

Pesticides are bad. As are volcanic eruptions.

But with that in mind, what do you propose.

The facts
It is more expensive to grow food than it is to sell it. Hence grain storage, subsidies, et cetera.

Do we then stop growing as much food? Or do we increase the cost of growing the food even more by sending it abroad to people in countries that can not support themselves with their own agriculture?

>>Is it preferable to let
>>people starve?
>
>There are many ways of farming
>without damaging the environment.

None of which can feed billions of people.

Unfortunately
>they don't generate huge corporate
>profits, and are brushed aside.

Raw food stuffs isn't that profit laden. Like office supplies, food suppliers make money off of volume.

>Even when those systems are
>already in place and functioning,
>cf. the imposition of GM
>rice in India over functional
>traditional means.

Does India produce more or less rice?

>>The argument that it brings on
>>menses at an earlier age
>>has not been proven.
>
>I'm not talking about a particular
>disease. I'm talking about the
>general bad state of the
>mass-produced food we eat.

What is bad about it the food we eat?

Not
>only does it taste like
>crap compared to the real
>thing

Taste is relative.

(obviously, if you've never
>tasted a real tomato, you
>won't be clamouring for any),

I've had tomatos from someone's backyard. I don't know if that's real enough for you.

>but I don't think that
>eating beef laden with steriods,

Steroids occur naturally. Although not the ones injected in beef.

>or having eaten ground-up animals
>(the cause of BSE) is
>going to be beneficial to
>your health.

The prions that cause BSE couldn't have been forseen by anyone. In fact the method of transmission for BSE was pretty novel at the time it came out. It is an argument against cannibalism.

>It's great that you find that
>vast pools of human talent
>going to waste in jobs
>that don't interest them is
>not a problem.

Why must you be interested in your job? That's a pretty elitist western way of looking at work.

Maybe people
>could take care of their
>kids better if they didn't
>have to kill their minds
>at work for the better
>part of the day.

Why do you think folks kill their minds at work?

Maybe
>they could even take time
>to read and be a
>bit more active, so as
>to qualify for Expertise's definition
>of a citizen. Maybe they
>could learn to play an
>instrument and contribute something more
>useful than the umpteenth pointless
>disposable good that they don't
>care about.

You are assuming a lot about the person working the dead end job.

>>Increased productivity without
>>an increase in wage pressure.
>
>Translation: work harder, earn the same,
>companies increase profits, and lay
>off as much as they
>can, the remaining people work
>harder...

The workers of today get their revenge now. Since we know that company loyalty is an antiquated notion, companies are scrambling to find ways to keep people. This will all change when the economy goes down.

>>alienation. It is relatively
>>a modern problem.
>
>It's not that recent. Marx talked
>about it a lot.

Modern age is what I meant. Folks have hated work for years. But work changed when Taylorism became the rule.

> I would prefer
>>to be a low paid
>>government employee than a high
>>paid automotive technician.
>
>Why is that?

I don't necessarily prefer that, but it is a typical American middle class attitude.

>Look, I think that "good" work
>is one in which you
>can express your individuality.

Again, why should work be an outlet for individuality?

When
>I was stacking shelves, or
>counting items in a warehouse,
>I felt that any fool
>could do that job.

And any fool could do that job. If you were making a good wage doing that, would it matter to you that anyone else could do it?

That's
>why I consider those jobs
>demeaning.

So you want all people to only work jobs that makes them use their intellect. Sorry potna, but at least half of us are in the lower 50% of the IQ chart. There are always going to be jobs that no one wants to do. There are also going to be a large amount of people who can not be doctors, engineers, ad exec's, musicians, and painters.

There is nothing to
>be brought to them, and
>very little to take out
>of them. You don't, and
>can't, care about what you
>are producing.

Why should you really care? I mean unless it's your stuff you're making, or your business, or good forbid you are have a protestant work ethic which says I must take pride in my work...

Then again, if
>someone feels they are truly
>fulfilling himself by stacking super-market
>shelves, that's great.

Why you want to take that opportunity away from them is beyond me. Some folks aren't cut out to do jobs with higher skill sets. People are different.

>>Some folks leave society. Teddy
>>Kazinsky, the unabomber, comes to
>>mind.
>
>Great example.

Thanks, I thought you would appreciate it.

>>>I'm talking about people's urge
>>>to form societies.
>>
>>Is it organic or mechanical?
>
>Please explain your question.

In essence is it something that we come up with independently, or is it something taught to us?

>>It means that each person is
>>unique. Each person is
>>different from another person.
>>They share commonalities though.
>
>As you like to say, "Now
>we're getting somewhere". (even though
>we're not, really).

Of course we're getting somewhere. I'm arguing finding holes in your argument and Expertise's argument. I want to know what makes the left and the right tick.

>>Ultimately nope. Folks hate each
>>other.
>
>Don't say it like it's a
>fact. Not everyone ascribes to
>Hobbes.

Okay let me just say with any group of people bigger than 1, folks will find some type of difference. Often that difference leads to ill will.


>Should we start a debate about
>what freedom is? Briefly, rules
>don't necessarily reduce freedom.

Yes they do. Rules reduce your personal freedom. You can not be with other people if you are in a committed relationship (well you can if you are in an open one, but that's another topic)

My
>freedom to shoot you in
>the street was taken away,
>but everyone's freedom to live
>was enhanced.

A loss of personal freedom is still a loss. There is a greater good gained.

>As I said before, Western wealth
>and Southern poverty are co-dependent,
>can't have one without the
>other.

Of course you can. There are plenty of folks who live outside the world theater who do okay.

>The Romans built
>>aqueducts without major technology.
>
>That was the highest technology of
>the time. They were very
>advanced.

But the technology that they used is something that a lot of folks can do without significant capital investment.

>
>>I've seen plenty of wastewater
>>treatements that are low tech.
>> You don't need capital
>>investment for clean water.
>
>Then you should go to these
>countries and tell them that,

I was specifically thinking about a plan in India to clean wastewater before it entered the Ganges. In essence they set up settling tanks and gravity was used to clean water and return it to the river. But the powers that be wanted a more western style system that relied on electricity, which is not all that reliable in the particular area. The low cost low tech very feasible idea was thrown out for the western way of life.

I don't think everyone in the world should live like folks in the west.

>cos they're obviously too stupid
>to do it for themselves.

I doubt that. There are all sorts of "problems" that folks in lesser developed nations face outside of mass education.

>>You still haven't addressed why you
>>think Americans are to blame
>>for this.

>Companies and gov'ts are to blame
>because they actively participate in
>this (not just US).

But aren't the foreign governments and people more at fault, if anyone can really be at fault in an exchange for goods and services?

>Are you sure about that?

Give me an example. The only slavery that I know of goes on in Sudan and Haiti. The scenario I described was the one used by Americans and the British in Asia back in the 1800's.

And
>why not, because they suddenly
>turned good-hearted?

There are cleaner ways to get people to do what you want them to do. Education, Media, or better yet consumerism. The real problem with most of these spots is that they know that there is a different standard of living. American ad exec's pump the 90210 life to the world. Maybe the working people don't see it, but I guarantee the business owners and foreign educated leaders of their country are up on things. (why are so many foreign leaders educated in America or in the West?)

>>westerners do not rouse
>>afrikans from their sleep and
>>put them into ships.
>
>Hell no, they pay for their
>own plane ticket now.

So that they can fly here get an education and not go back home. It's called the brain drain.

Or
>better yet, stay where they
>are, consume your goods and
>sell you cheap stuff.

We both get something. I get a worthless piece of paper and they get a badly made television.

>Check out http://www.jubilee2000uk.org
>quotes:
>"Each year developing countries pay the
>West nine times more in
>debt repayments than they receive
>in grants."

A grant is free money. A debt repayment is paying back a loan. There is a distinct difference. Should we then forgive the debt of these countries? What if they want more money?

>"Africa spends four times as much
>on debt repayment as she
>does on healthcare."

Africa, the continent, doesn't have a health infrastructure. Africa probably spends more on weapons than on debt repayment. (although I have a feeling folks are borrowing to buy weapons..)

>Guess who all that money is
>owed to?

I'm still waiting for my check.

>> But if you don't
>>have a health, education, physical
>>infrastructure, you can not get
>>into the race with the
>>G-8 nations.
>
>If you've been pillaged for 100s
>of years, it kind of
>makes things harder.

They were like that before the "pillaging".

>>
>>When folks don't want to live
>>like the west, how is
>>their lifestyle? Take a
>>look at the South Pacific.
>
>"The west is supreme, our lifestyle
>is the best", is what
>you are saying.

I'm not saying that. In fact what I am saying is that the American consumer lifestyle that the world envy's is the problem with this entire debate. The Right says we don't need to do anything other than rape the land, I mean capital investment. The Left says we need a mass wealth transfer program. I ask is there an alternative to the suburban mentality of 1st world elites. Neither side even considers that life can be something other than the convenient comfortable life that we live right now.

When I started working I wondered where did my money go
- rent 36%
- food - 17% (groceries and going out with my folks)
- loans - 9%
- Car - 9%
- credit - 6%
- utilties - 4%
- laundry - 3%

I had about 15% left at the end of the month. It didn't seem like a lot, but I had what I needed.

It then occurred to me that the computers, the clothes, the gadgets, the car stuff I wanted, and I was considering to get on credit, I didn't really need. I sure wanted them. I wanted clothes for work, so I could talk to girls, a computer for the net, a car to drift in, et cetera..

The folks who tell me that they are poor aren't really that poor. They are comparing themselves to the folks they see on Extra, or maybe the one guy who is a comp sci major who is making 60k a year. (in Austin you need about 16-17K to live in a nice place, be fed, and have a car)

Let's bring this back to the 3rd world. You have lots of folks who live a year on less than I make in a day. beyond any notion of American poverty, i'm talking about subsistence level of poverty.

So let's look at life from a non-economic point of view.

I need to eat, I need to sleep somewhere, and I need to do that for the rest of my life.

That is being accomplished all over the planet without the lifestyle of the Americas. But folks want to live like us, hence all the stress and strife.

>> I pay taxes so
>>my grandparents can get a
>>check. It doesn't go
>>into an account earmarked for
>>me. (although you can find
>>out how much you've contributed)
>
>True, I was a bit quick
>in my writing. But do
>you consider that charity?

Yes.

>I
>don't. Making sure that old
>people who've worked all their
>lives don't end their days
>in poverty isn't charity.

They should have provided for themselves. In most other spots the family takes care of them.

>nifty things like countless wars? Yes,
>military research is often the
>basis for everyday technology (mobile
>phones, to name one). I
>don't see how that justifies
>them.

You would exhange all technological advance for no more weapons?

>>In some states you can abort
>>up until the baby is
>>born.
>
>That is completely stupid and pointless.

Why? Just because it is disagreeable to you doesn't mean that a woman should not be able to choose what she does with her body.

>
>>Life is life. Is it
>>okay to kill off mentally
>>retarded folks, people in vegetative
>>states, anyone not fit to
>>walk and think for themselves?
>
>Did I say it was?

Life which isn't conscious is not important in your eyes. "A non conscious mass". Kill folks in comas.

However,
>the foetus is in the
>unique position of not actually
>being an independent entity.

A child isn't independent either. But we have all sorts of crazy laws protecting them. I say until you're 18 or independent you don't have any rights. The law doesn't agree with me, but the rest of society does.

Thus
>the mother has full control
>of it and can decide
>what she does with it.

this extends past child birth.

>>so you would prefer a national
>>referenda to launch?
>
>Why not? That way I doubt
>we'd ever use them offensively.

I don't have that much faith. I think if the American public was given a choice between launching a nuke at Saddam, or better yet vietnam, or sending thousands of soldiers to die many would choose atomic weapons.

>>You do what you have to
>>do to survive.
>
>If you have to destroy the
>planet to survive, then you
>do that?

It's been going on for eons. It's not 'right' but it is the way of life.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 10:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "keeping it short.."
In response to Reply # 48


          

A few points made me laugh.
I agreed with some others.
I disagreed with most (you just seem to me to condone the current state of the world and be happy with it, whereas I am not. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong.).

Just one point, because we haven't discussed it to the point of boredom yet.

I said:
My freedom to shoot you in the street was taken away, but everyone's freedom to live was enhanced.

You replied:
A loss of personal freedom is still a loss. There is a greater good gained.

A society where people are free to shoot each other is a society where individuals can do nothing more than attempt to survive. They can't work together, 'cos of constant risk of getting shot.
Outlaw this, and every individual gains the freedom to live. Perhaps something is lost (I don't really think so, but you're American, maybe you wish you were able to shoot people down ), but so much more is gained by every individual. It's not even about "greater good", every individual's life is enhanced.
And BTW, to have "total" freedom, you have to have one rule: "There are no other rules".
And with that, I'm giving up this thread, as I said before, especially as my partner in crime seems to have left as well.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Thu Aug-31-00 03:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "hey mke"
In response to Reply # 49


  

          

>And with that, I'm giving up
>this thread, as I said
>before, especially as my partner
>in crime seems to have
>left as well.

I've been working on this worldwide evil revolution, where monstruous democrats plan to evolve instead of trying to restore the Ancien Regime. Care to join ?

krewc

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Thu Aug-31-00 11:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "RE: hey mke"
In response to Reply # 50


          

I would, but I don't know if the soundtrack to the evolution (i.e. I'm still waiting for it to arrive) is good. If it's good, then I might join. As long as I get guaranteed access to cheap labour.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 01:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "krewcial's 5 francs"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

>>The most succesful in exploiting
>>the labour of many for
>>the benefit of the few?
>
>Obviously we are talking about any
>country that has had a
>King or an Aristocracy, France,
>England, Ashanti Kingdom, ..
>Definitely not America.

No, of course. No such thing as sweatshops or maquiladores.
The fact that American companies mainly exploit FOREIGN people instead of their own population doesn’t make it less worse to me.

>Our country has created
>an environment where the ills
>of the rest of the
>world aren't outside our doors
>everyday. The vast majority
>of Americans do not know
>what real hunger is.
>No American is worried about
>mortar shells or terrorist bombings.

No, but the vast majority of the so-called "Third World" knows real hunger, mainly cos of the way world trade is organised and structured. Which has a lot to do with the way the US chooses to go. G8, the WTO, World Bank, …

And while only few Americans have to worry about warfare, people all around this globe have been and ARE subject to US agression, whether it be military, economical, agricultural, political, ...

Nicaragua, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Italy, Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Granada, ... Those are just a few.

> The most succesful
>>in creating maintaining the world
>>in an unprecedented state of
>>insecurity?
>
>Who is insecure?

Plenty of people in- and outside the US.
Start with the same countries I just mentioned.
Then add that other side of Philly Black Thought showed and other main US cities.

That should give you plenty of insecurity to keep you busy for a while.

Rio conference, non-proliferation, anti-mine resolution ? All of this contributes to the insecurity Mwanji referred to.

>>I'm not saying "things were better
>>before". I'm just asking what
>>the US system (ironically, based
>>on theories developed by Brits
>>and Frogs) is the most
>>succesful at.
>
>A better question, and shorter list
>would be things that we
>are the least successful at.

. accessible health care
. non racist police and institutions (AKA elementary human rights)
. no political prisoners
. separation religion/politics (the US is very heavily "Christian" inspired, swearing on the bible, references to God in presidential speeches, ...)
. war on drugs (Orwellian terminology)
. …
(I kept it short since you requested it)

>Making money for
>>Bill Gates? Bringing me an
>>amazing amount of pointless material
>>goods?
>
>Cheap grain and meat is definitely
>pointless.

Grain that has been engineered genetically without even considering the possible long term effects of it.
Meat filled with hormones, meat we won't even allow in Europe since it carries big risks for people's health. (KRS, "Beef")

Plus your grain is so cheap since it's heavily funded with public money, and it's sold on a closed market with heavy tarrif barriers for any non-Western producers. Which means it “coincidentally” also destroys foreign economies, which makes it easier for American companies to take over these industries and businesses and make those same people they empoverished work for them at (what a surprise !) LOW wages.

>>Providing millions of people
>>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?
>
>What does Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea,
>or Malaysia have to do
>with this?

The US wellbeing and prosperity is largely built on the US companies income, which a lot of them generate through sweatshop/low wage labour or abuse of non existing environmental legislation in these and similar countries.

Same thing is true about my relative wellbeing and luxury (even though I don’t live in the US, I still benefit). But at least I’m aware of this, and I try to do something about it.

>No one asked me to
>join this society. I
>was born into it.

You DO have a choice to stay or leave. A lot of people around me don't know another way of life than to take profit of other people and be ignorant, does that leave me with no choice but to do the same too ?

You have a choice. Don't like the fact that Indonesian/African/... people are a part of your society ? Either leave or kill them.

>2 kids from the worst
>ghetto in the states can
>have 2 completely different futures.

I agree, but Expertise claims that their futures will solely depend on their individual actions, and has NOTHING to do with any structural processes or injustices that exist. Whereas I (and mke too, I think) try to say that there are a lot of problems that stop ambitious and hard working people to make it, and that they can do nothing about, cos they don't have any access to power, or cos the laws that should guarantee free access to all are are not applied.

What I'm also trying to show is that you can have the best laws in the world, but if they aren't applied every single time (not just ‘every now and then’, that’s not a ‘law’, that’s ‘coincidence’) they're worthless . To make sure all laws are applied, you need some form of control. I think this should be democratic control (not necessarily a referendum, but an appropriate representation of people's wishes).

What alternative do you have for controlling how laws are applied ? Companies ?

>We live together because our culture
>forces us to. From
>the very beginning of life
>we are forced to include
>other people within our lives.

Maybe that also has to do with the fact that humans are social animals. We don't learn ourselves how to survive. Most of what we know is the result of socialisation, which can only take place in groups (min. 2 people).

>It is an axiom. How
>is everyone not an individual?
>
>What really needs to be said
>is that all individuals are
>not going to agree on
>the right course of action.

This would be true, if at least every person had access to expressing what they think in the first place. Everyone IS an individual, but not everyone is RECOGNIZED as such.

I can be as individual as I want, but if I don’t get to vote (or any other decent means of input), or get shot when I try to set up a union in my factory, people stop being individuals. Why ? Cos people rather be exploited but alive, than free and dead.

>>This too is great (I do
>>recognise when you say something
>>true). However, do you realise
>>that the way we (Westerners)
>>live everyday hurts and has
>>hurt millions of people around
>>the globe?
>
>How so?

Go back to the top of my reply. Our relative wealth is generated through the structural exploitation of others.

Unfair world trade, G8, World Bank, WTO, …

>It's called foreign aid, social security,
>and welfare. My tax
>dollars go to all sorts
>of things I might, or
>might not approve of.

Foreign aid = charity ? Wow. Did you know that most foreign aid is paid some way, by the country that gets it ? Did you know that most foreign aid benefits US/Western companies, and very often not the foreign population at all ?

Social security and welfare are not charity. Do you already know today that you’ll never have to use it ? If so, congratulations Mr. Nostradamus. You pay a little money now to cover the much bigger expenses made later whenever you’ll be hospitalized (at least that’s how it works over here).


>>Didn't think so.
>>Maybe a more relevant example of
>>what you are trying to
>>say would be: Why should
>>I (speaking of myself, as
>>a member of the middle-class)
>>be forced (through taxes) to
>>pay for a hospital in
>>some poor area of my
>>country that I will never
>>go to?
>
>Exactly. Now you're coming around.

Maybe this is an answer : becos people in a complete different area than yours helped paying for the hospital/doctor/nurse when you were born ? Or do you regret that too ?

Or, a variation : why does Nike build a factory in some other country, why don’t they provide people with jobs here ? Strange you’re not struggling with this question.
Well, so is health care. A service is a product too.
What ? You’d rather pay the moment you really need it. Okay, but then prepare to pay the actual price. Do you know how much a medical scanner actually costs ?
You’d better start saving now if you want to be able to afford it. Uhm, maybe you are already saving right now, through paying taxes ?

We’ll talk again the day you’re seriously ill and can’t afford your medicine or therapy.

>Most
>people would agree with choice,
>and most would also think
>that a 7 month old
>fetus is also a person.

I don’t know the US legislation, but I’d be very surprised if abortion is allowed with a 7 month old foetus. The risks are much too big for both mother and child, and a 7 month foetus is definitely a ‘person’ to me.
If the US allow abortion up till the 7th month, I think that’s pretty sick and can be called ‘murder’ indeed.

>Or should you leave the uneducated
>masses with the nuclear launch
>controls?

The real question is : would there be any nuclear launch controls if there had been democracy in the US ?

krewc

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 02:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "speaking of exploitation and "5 francs"..."
In response to Reply # 37


          

You're exploiting my 300 francs! Yeah, I bet in your little off-shore account (you think I didn't realise that "I work at social security" was a front?!?) those 300 have already become 30,000, while I sit here twiddling my thumbs with no new Krewcial music to listen to.

And what's up with giving out my name on the net? That ain't even my real name anyway. Yeah I'm running a scam too. You don't even realise!

Apart from that, we agree. One correction: I believe people are a result of their environment (parents, friends, school, media...) and of however they are configured from birth. The relative importance of each varies from person to person. Saying "We're all individuals" is silly to me because it means nothing. If we're all so individuals, how come so many people think alike (and I'm not talking about brainwashing by the evil government/big business/media/hegemonic thought nebula).

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 06:02 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
44. "RE: krewcial's 5 francs"
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

>>>The most succesful in exploiting
>>>the labour of many for
>>>the benefit of the few?
>>
>>Obviously we are talking about any
>>country that has had a
>>King or an Aristocracy, France,
>>England, Ashanti Kingdom, ..
>>Definitely not America.
>
>No, of course. No such
>thing as sweatshops or maquiladores.

What is your point? When you look at the total working population of Mexico, a very small percentage works in American owned factories.

Apparently there are lots of other jobs for people to take.

>The fact that American companies mainly
>exploit FOREIGN people instead of
>their own population doesn’t make
>it less worse to me.

American companies use their own people for lots of things. I was gonna be a wafer fab tech at motorola or applied materials or at AMD, if this college thing didn't work out. 12 hour days are not joke.

>No, but the vast majority of
>the so-called "Third World" knows
>real hunger, mainly cos of
>the way world trade is
>organised and structured.

What are you talking about? Drought and traditional farming methods have more to do with hunger than anything else.

Which
>has a lot to do
>with the way the US
>chooses to go. G8, the
>WTO, World Bank, …

Break it down. You cats on the left must be in some special club that doesn't allow you to bring details to light. If anything remember that you and I are not the only people reading this exchange.

>And while only few Americans have
>to worry about warfare, people
>all around this globe have
>been and ARE subject to
>US agression, whether it be
>military, economical, agricultural, political, ...

details.

>
>Nicaragua, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Italy, Mexico,
>Cuba, Colombia, Granada, ...
>Those are just a few.

Iraq - they invaded one of our major interests.
Cuba - Cuban Missile crisis ring a bell? How about American tourist planes shot down?

I'm sure I could go through the rest and find a good reason for involvement.

>Plenty of people in- and outside
>the US.
>Start with the same countries I
>just mentioned.
>Then add that other side of
>Philly Black Thought showed and
>other main US cities.

Folks in Compton are worried more about the criminals than the cops. The same can be said for every hood in America. I've spent plenty of time in these spots. You need to really study it first hand to know what I'm talking about.

>>A better question, and shorter list
>>would be things that we
>>are the least successful at.
>
>. accessible health care

Medicare, Medicaid. There are lots of accessible health care options. Most fulltime employees have health insurance, or can qualify for such plans. Americans also have the best facilities at their disposal. Canadians, who have universal health care, routinely cross the border to see American doctors.

>. non racist police and institutions

America has problems. Believe me as a black man living in the South I know of them first hand. I've sacked groceries for Klansmen, I've walked in on Neo Nazi groups. I've been in and out of the criminal injustice system. (as a law clerk fortunately). I know all too well about racist police and institutions.

It still doesn't compare to what it's like in other countries.

>. no political prisoners

This isn't china. Leftists aren't jailed for their ideas. Mumia Abu Jamal is not a political prisoner in the same sense as those who spoke out during Tianamen square. Americans are jailing dissidents. Otherwise Farrakhan and Metzger would be in prison right now.

>. separation religion/politics (the US is
>very heavily "Christian" inspired, swearing
>on the bible, references to
>God in presidential speeches, ...)

Most the folks in the US are Christian. We have explicit protections in our constitution to stop the establishment of a state religion.

>. war on drugs (Orwellian terminology)

We aren't winning it. Legalization wouldn't get at the underlying problem though.

>Grain that has been engineered genetically
>without even considering the possible
>long term effects of it.

It's been in the market for years now. As have been plenty of other engineered foodstuffs. How long have Twinkies been out there. You're falling for the GMO hype.

>Meat filled with hormones, meat we
>won't even allow in Europe
>since it carries big risks
>for people's health.

Name some. Are you suggesting that the meat industry and the health industry are conspiring to give Americans heart disease?

Eating meat ain't healthy in general. (at least compared to an all vegetarian diet) But are you suggesting that cows that are given drugs to combat disease and promote growth are somehow unsafe?

>(KRS,
>"Beef")

Please don't quote KRS on a political discussion board. KRS got so many problems with his logic and ideas it's not even funny. In the said song, he recommended Elijah Muhammad's "How to Eat to Live". Last time I checked the former NOI leader wasn't a nutritionist.

>Plus your grain is so cheap
>since it's heavily funded with
>public money,

Again you're talking about something inherent to our political system. Are you a true capitalist and believe that a country should give up an industry because others are more efficient?

American farmers are constantly in debt despite having lots of grain. That is a function of the world market producing lots of grain. It seems as is the world is still hungry though.

>and it's sold
>on a closed market with
>heavy tarrif barriers for any
>non-Western producers.

You're getting a lot of stuff confused.

America already produces more grain that it can use. That's why most family farms are one growing season away from the poor house. What you are suggesting is that starving 3rd world countries want to export even more rice into a rice saturated country. To protect the American farmer from even more loss, the american govt guarantees him a price, called a subsidy, and raises tariffs on rice from other countries.

Now you are telling me that the same countries that are starving because of American business, are trying to send us food. And because we raise the price on their food, they are starving.

Give me a specific example so that I can follow you better.

>Which means
>it “coincidentally” also destroys foreign
>economies, which makes it easier
>for American companies to take
>over these industries and businesses
>and make those same people
>they empoverished work for them
>at (what a surprise !)
>LOW wages.

They were working for LOW(compared to American wages, which are low compared to European wages) wages before Americans got there. And nothing keeps them in those industries.

>The US wellbeing and prosperity is
>largely built on the US
>companies income, which a lot
>of them generate through sweatshop/low
>wage labour or abuse of
>non existing environmental legislation in
>these and similar countries.

Give me the facts.

>>No one asked me to
>>join this society. I
>>was born into it.
>
>You DO have a choice to
>stay or leave.

Just like folks in other countries that work in sweatshops have a choice?

A
>lot of people around me
>don't know another way of
>life than to take profit
>of other people

It's called organization. I can benefit from the labor of others. 2 people farming one acre each, can not produce as much as two people farming 2 acres. The amount of land doesn't change, but the division of labor makes it more efficient.

>try to say that there
>are a lot of problems
>that stop ambitious and hard
>working people to make it,

no doubt. It's mathematical actually. In order to have a middle and upper class you have to have a lower class. You can't have a 2 without a 1.

>and that they can do
>nothing about, cos they don't
>have any access to power,

I thought votes counted for something on this board.

>or cos the laws that
>should guarantee free access to
>all are are not applied.

For instance?


>What I'm also trying to show
>is that you can have
>the best laws in the
>world, but if they aren't
>applied every single time (not
>just ‘every now and then’,
>that’s not a ‘law’, that’s
>‘coincidence’) they're worthless .

That is every law. We don't have an omniscient force to enforce every law on the books.

>To make sure all laws
>are applied, you need some
>form of control. I
>think this should be democratic
>control (not necessarily a referendum,
>but an appropriate representation of
>people's wishes).

You don't trust the people? Wait a minute...

>What alternative do you have for
>controlling how laws are applied
>? Companies ?

Private companies don't have any public oversight.

>This would be true, if at
>least every person had access
>to expressing what they think
>in the first place.

Everyone has access. Not everyone will listen. I can put out a zine and circulate it, but it doesn't compare in efficacy to a multi-million dollar TV campaign. Should everyone have access to a national TV network?

>Everyone IS an individual, but
>not everyone is RECOGNIZED as
>such.

Folks are recognized all the time. But do the powers that be really care?


>>It's called foreign aid, social security,
>>and welfare. My tax
>>dollars go to all sorts
>>of things I might, or
>>might not approve of.
>
>Foreign aid = charity ?

In the minds of most Americans yes. When folks are starving the backwoods of WVA then why are we sending food and jobs abroad.

>Wow. Did you know
>that most foreign aid is
>paid some way, by the
>country that gets it ?

Loans are made with strings attached. Standard practice.

> Did you know that
>most foreign aid benefits US/Western
>companies, and very often not
>the foreign population at all

The foreign folks work there right?

>?
>
>Social security and welfare are not
>charity. Do you already
>know today that you’ll never
>have to use it ?

I don't know that. I could be injured on the job and have to collect.

> If so, congratulations Mr.
>Nostradamus. You pay a
>little money now to cover
>the much bigger expenses made
>later whenever you’ll be hospitalized
>(at least that’s how it
>works over here).

I pay for the senior citizens of today. My grandchildren are supposed to pay mine off.


>Maybe this is an answer :
>becos people in a complete
>different area than yours helped
>paying for the hospital/doctor/nurse when
>you were born ?
>Or do you regret that
>too ?

My folks paid for my doctor. That's how it works in America. You pay for services rendered.

but I get your point, I was trying, in vain it seems, to be sarcastic.

>Or, a variation : why does
>Nike build a factory in
>some other country, why don’t
>they provide people with jobs
>here ? Strange you’re
>not struggling with this question.

Cause American companies are greedy, and folks in other countries have a lower standard of living, and will work for a lot less.

Why should Indonesians live like Americans?

>Well, so is health care.
>A service is a
>product too.
>What ? You’d rather pay
>the moment you really need
>it. Okay, but then
>prepare to pay the actual
>price. Do you know
>how much a medical scanner
>actually costs ?

You're starting to get confused here. When I get my bones x-rayed, I'm paying for the service and not the capital. I pay for the costs of one use of that machine and its personnell. The person who owns that machine pays the capital cost based on an aggregate of people like me.

>You’d better start saving now if
>you want to be able
>to afford it. Uhm,
>maybe you are already saving
>right now, through paying taxes
>?

To an extent tax dollars support medicine. But the engine that drives is the money that consumers bring.

>We’ll talk again the day you’re
>seriously ill and can’t afford
>your medicine or therapy.

I will eventually die, as will all Americans and everyone else in lesser developed nations.

>I don’t know the US legislation,
>but I’d be very surprised
>if abortion is allowed with
>a 7 month old foetus.

Federal law says nothing about it. Supreme court rulings are another matter. State laws are the ones that govern it. It is possible in some states to get a really late term abortion. I think 7 months might be pushing it. But 5 or 6 is not unheard of.

>If the US allow abortion up
>till the 7th month, I
>think that’s pretty sick and
>can be called ‘murder’ indeed.

So what's 3 or 4 months then?

>
>>Or should you leave the uneducated
>>masses with the nuclear launch
>>controls?
>
>The real question is : would
>there be any nuclear launch
>controls if there had been
>democracy in the US ?

There has always been democracy in the US. Americans, as well as others, are afraid of things different from themselves. In this case it was communists.
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 02:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: yes, I am replying to you"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

>>*sighs* Such is the problem with people today. >Important issues are too "mundane" for them, and >they rather gossip or clown around.
>
>Thanks for appreciating the hours I've
>spent typing out replies to
>your opinions.

Oh I sincerely do appreciate it. You've been able to do more than most people. Imagine me going to BET.com and trying to spur up political debate? How long you think that would last?

>I said it was getting boring
>because it was getting repetitive,
>which is why I tried
>to change the tack of
>conversation a little bit.

I noticed the repetition. I appreciate it.

>After choosing not to address the
>obvious contradiction in your words
>("national sovereignty" turns into "accept
>our system"), you continue to
>make statements that place you
>in the "typical American" category
>(sorry about your aspirations to
>individuality).

Because national soverignty and accept our system has two different meanings. National soverignty refers to government jurisdiction. When I say accept our system, that means you need to accept that WE are going to keep our system alive. That doesn't mean we are going to force you to implement our system into your government or even your way of life. Therefore it wasn't a contradiction.

>What exactly is the US system
>the most succesful in? The
>most succesful in destroying the
>environment on a global scale?
>The most succesful in exploiting
>the labour of many for
>the benefit of the few?

I think korr explained this better than I could, but tell me, can you name a country that has had more economic, technological, and a bigger influence in world issues than the United States, without the hopes of world domination?

When you ask about the environment and labor, do you actually mean the US or do you mean international companies working in soverign countries?

>The most succesful in raising
>a generation of people who
>don't care (the very people
>you hate)?

When you talk about a generation that don't care, can you actually direct that to the United States, or can you actually direct that into their own individual desires that override political interests because people like you tell them that they have no power or influence in government, and thus should not be concerned with it? Is this "no voice" idea different in other countries? If there was another government, would it differ? The answer to the last two questions is no.

>The most succesful
>in creating maintaining the world
>in an unprecedented state of
>insecurity?

Really now? I guess we started both World Wars, and was the aggressor of the Cuban Missle Crisis, which almost started WW III. If you are talking about the development of nuclear weaponry, believe me when I tell you that if we hadn't, someone else had, and you probably wouldn't like the person it was. If the US hadn't developed nuclear weapons first, then this world could/would have been in control of the 3rd Reich. But I guess you will blame us for allowing them into power too, instead of the fickleness and easy going appeasement of western European countries, most notably Britain and France.

>Making money for
>Bill Gates?

Ha. Actually Gates doesn't even have the grip on the economy as everyone thinks. In actual dollars he might be the richest man ever, but in comparison to the economy, he doesn't have the riches that the Rockefellers, Carnegie, and others had. Not to mention most of his money is invested in shares of Microsoft, which is being broke up. So therefore we are not making money for him. Considering he broke out into a new industry, he's made new money. We aren't making money for him.

>Bringing me an
>amazing amount of pointless material
>goods?

If the goods are pointless then why are you buying them? That doesn't make sense.

Providing millions of people
>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?

Like what? Tell me what jobs are there now that didn't exist back in history that didn't demean people? Sweatshops? I guess working in cotton, tobacco, rice, and other fields with manual tools are not considered demeaning and at times inhumane. I guess working in the tech world making a high 5-6 figure salary is considered uninteresting. I guess the fact that more people than ever have control over their futures and a chance to fight a vitural caste system than ever in order to make something of themselves is considered uninspiring.

In other words, there is alot that needs to be done in this world, but that doesn't mean you have to dismiss the advances and the contributions that we have made.

>>I do think they can govern themselves, but not
>>each other.

>So why are people compelled to
>come together and form societies?
>Cos they're idiots?

Just because there is a society doesn't mean you're codependent on each other. Nor do you have the right to tell someone how to live.

>So the environment that is around
>you has no influence upon
>you? If that were the
>case, there would be no
>such thing as empathy, and
>I'm not sure I would
>be able to recognise (from
>an emotional standpoint) other people
>as human beings. It is
>because we have many things
>in common (to varying degrees
>depending on culture, etc.) that
>we can live together.

That's not the point. Just because we have things in common doesn't mean we don't disagree on certain things either. The point was that we all have different experiences. And, even if two people have simular experiences that doesn't mean they are going to view experiences the same. You might see a glass as half-empty, but I might see it as half-full.

>>Therefore, why try to clump everyone under one
>>whole group?
>
>Who just said that everyone is
>an individual? Why are you
>clumping everyone in one big
>group?

Read the sentence again. I asked why would you try to. I never said we should.

>>Government should be there to keep the nation
>>together, and to prevent other people from taking
><away your human rights, along with
>your right to
>>life, liberty, and property.
>
>This statement is great and true.
>I'm not quite sure what
>"keeping the nation together" means,
>but the rest is very
>cool.

The Civil War saga, before, during, and after; the 1960's; the Great Depression era; etc.

>This is why I say you
>hate people. Plus you sound
>like the Vatican in the
>Middle Ages. What doesn't vary?
>God? No, what doesn't vary
>is...

Since when does saying I don't care to put trust in everyone I see to make decisions on my welfare constitute as hate? Do/Can you trust everyone in your country to make correct decisions on your welfare?

>> paper
>>for all to see and abide by? Then there is no
>>question whatsoever about what the law is, or
>>what the principles of that law are based on.
>
>Come on man. Who puts these
>ideals on paper? Men that
>are the product of there
>times.

Not true, because if that was the case then America's Founding Fathers would have made a government based on the existing governments of that time, which were monarchies. They developed new ideas and new principles by examining the mistakes of those governments and learning from them. If they were products of their times, then territorial independence itself would not have come to pass because it hadn't happened before.

>>Laws are not flexible; they shouldn't be scrapped
>>or overridden because of public opinion. Law >should be constant

>More evidence of your people-hating. And
>massive silliness to boot. If
>the law were constant, Krewcial
>(sorry Krew) would own the
>both of us, and his
>girl-friend wouldn't be able to
>vote.

But that wasn't because of public opinion that's because it was necessary for the future of the nation. In fact I believe that if it would have come down to a national democratic referendum on slavery in the United States in the early 1800's the abolitionists would lose.
Not to mention the principles of the law, aka the Constitution didn't change. Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, therefore the slaveholders were in the wrong ALREADY, and were already contradicting the Constitution.

>If a law doesn't appeal to
>me, I can fight against
>it. However, in your system,
>the law never changes, thus
>I have no input into
>the laws I have to
>obey. Isn't that a dictatorship?

No. A dictatorship changes with the will of the dictator. There is no constant law; it changes when he wants to change it.

>>I feel I should be able to do what I want as long
>>as I am not hurting others
>
>This too is great (I do
>recognise when you say something
>true). However, do you realise
>that the way we (Westerners)
>live everyday hurts and has
>hurt millions of people around
>the globe? Or do you
>not care and say "That's
>for their government to take
>care of"?

Well, it IS their government's responsibility to look out for the interests of their own people. It's not that I don't care, I think you should simply hold the right people responsible for the fate of others. Laws can't enforce themselves. If they are criminal, then charge them, if they aren't but it still hurts the country, then make a law that abolishes that practice. Simple.

>>If my opinions and theories are against the >majority opinion, I want to know that the law
>>protects my voice and my wishes as well as the >majority

>Great. Freedom of speech. Never said
>I was against it. You
>however, believe that the opinions
>of the fickle, wishy-washy people
>should be ignored. But you
>don't hate the people.

Wrong. I never said they shouldn't have a voice. I simply said that laws should not be based simply on a majority's wishes. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to voice their concerns like I do. That's why I added the conjunction "as well as the majority".

>> If you feel that charity funds should go over to
>>help people in Rawanda, what's stopping you from
>>pulling cash out of your pocket to make that
>>happen? Do you have to force other people to do
>>it also?

>Have you ever been forced to
>donate to charity?
>Didn't think so.

Foreign aid is charity. Wealth redistribution is charity. Anytime you give money or products to someone else without a service being performed, it's charity.

>Maybe a more relevant example of
>what you are trying to
>say would be: Why should
>I (speaking of myself, as
>a member of the middle-class)
>be forced (through taxes) to
>pay for a hospital in
>some poor area of my
>country that I will never
>go to?
>If that's what you're asking then
>I think you're an idiot.
>If that's not what you're
>asking, please correct me.

Don't worry I will. Who says I will never visit that area the hospital is in and not get sick or injured? Therefore your comparison with hospitals to my comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. I do believe, however, that money in a certain district should be used inside that district first to ease the needs of the public, before it is used in other districts.

>What exactly is the point of
>this whole rhetorical question tirade
>(hmmm... maybe I shouldn't criticise,
>I did one in this
>very post!)?

The point is who are you to make decisions for another adult? That's the question.

>>When you make ideals laws, there are no ifs ands
>>or buts; if you don't abide by it, you have to
>>pay the consequences

>I think from here on your post descends into
>nonsense and platitudes. It's not just you, most
>long-ass posts tend to turn to nonsense by the
>umpteenth paragraph, which is part of the reason
>they get boring. Hell, maybe I'm typing nonsense
>and platitudes right now.

*shrugs* If you say so...
The point of that was to say that whatever government does, it does by force. There is no deciding whether you are going to abide by a law. If caught, you go to jail. Period. Therefore, laws should not be based merely on the beliefs of the majority because their beliefs aren't everyone's beliefs.

>>Why should the masses collectively have power
>>over what everyone else does?

>If you have freedom of speech
>and access to political power
>(i.e. democracy), then you can
>fight the masses. I think
>that is within the bounds
>of your own motto: "Get
>off your lazy butt and
>get to work". Failing that,
>with all these cheap plane
>tickets, you can just leave.

How are you to do that if the laws are based on majority opinion?


>>They don't know how my money should be spent
>
>Just say it: you don't want
>to pay taxes. Is that
>it?

No that is not it, nor is that realistic. The reason we pay taxes, or at least it should be, is to compensate for public services, such as fire, police, rescue, and utilities, as well as compensation of government officals and employees. Not for the numerous government programs in existence.

>>They don't know what is going on in domestic,
>>national, and foreign affairs every minute.

>And who does? And who should
>make decisions that involve the
>whole nation? A detached expert
>(or rather, "expert") who ignores
>whatever the stupid uninformed people
>may be asking for?

Is that better than having an even more unimformed majority decide the fate of the nation, or possibly in the US's case, the world? That's ridiculous.

>>I like people
>
>No, you don't.
>
>>just because I like them doesn't mean I trust
>>them to make accurate decisions

>I like you, I really do,
>it's just that I think
>you're a lazy, stupid, uniformed,
>irrational thief. But I gots
>love for ya.

Bingo. That's why I don't have or want full control over your life. Your life is your concern, not to be put in the hands of my lazy, stupid, uninformed, irrational self. You're starting to understand.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 11:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: yes, I am replying to you"
In response to Reply # 31


          

> Imagine me going to
>BET.com and trying to spur
>up political debate? How
>long you think that would
>last?

LOL

>Because national soverignty and accept our
>system has two different meanings.
> National soverignty refers to
>government jurisdiction. When I
>say accept our system, that
>means you need to accept
>that WE are going to
>keep our system alive.
>That doesn't mean we are
>going to force you to
>implement our system into your
>government or even your way
>of life.

Actually, it does. Ever heard of "structural adjustment"? The WTO?

>Therefore it
>wasn't a contradiction.

Yes it was. Simply because the capitalist system is inherently expansionist (the need to capture new markets). Which means forcing to varying degrees other countries (markets) to accept your ways.

>can you name a
>country that has had more
>economic, technological, and a bigger
>influence in world issues than
>the United States, without the
>hopes of world domination?

Like k. orr, this statement shows utter ignorance of the world. I believe it was the Monroe Act (can't remember date, 1850's maybe) in which the US virtually laid claim to South America. The US today runs an empire (along with it's European and Japanese dukes) far more efficient than anything ever seen previously. No hopes of world domination? Just because there hasn't been territorial expansion for a long time, doesn't mean there isn't expansion.

>When you ask about the environment
>and labor, do you actually
>mean the US or do
>you mean international companies working
>in soverign countries?

I mean both. Public and private are not two discrete spheres. They work together at all levels, from international law-making (ever heard of the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investment?) on down.

>can you
>actually direct that into their
>own individual desires that override
>political interests because people like
>you tell them that they
>have no power or influence
>in government, and thus should
>not be concerned with it?

You're the one who says that masses should be ignored, now I'm the one who's telling people they have no power? I want to bring power to the people, you have no coherent plan other than "let me live my life". Try a bit of honesty.

> Is this "no voice"
>idea different in other countries?

This is a "most succesful" debate. No-one said it's not happening anywhere else.

> If there was another
>government, would it differ?

As in a different president or a different type of government?
>>The most succesful
>>in creating maintaining the world
>>in an unprecedented state of
>>insecurity?
>
>Really now? I guess we
>started both World Wars, and
>was the aggressor of the
>Cuban Missle Crisis, which almost
>started WW III.

I speak of the Cold War. Remember that? 40-odd years of nuclear arms race? Of proxy wars (Korea, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan...)? Of financed dictatorships (Mobutu in Zaire to name one)? And some people call that period "The Long Peace"...

If
>you are talking about the
>development of nuclear weaponry, believe
>me when I tell you
>that if we hadn't, someone
>else had, and you probably
>wouldn't like the person it
>was.

Einstein deeply regretted that his discoveries had led to the creation of nuclear weapons. I think he even said he would rather not of made them.
Plus, you act like the US is the good guy. Why? Because US hegemony has made you (and I) rich and comfortable. Unfortunately, for 80% of the world's population that is not the case. And as I said before, our wealth is directly linked to their poverty.

>If the US
>hadn't developed nuclear weapons first,
>then this world could/would have
>been in control of the
>3rd Reich.

Nuclear weapons had no role in deciding the outcome of WWII. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes committed to test the efficiency of new weapons against a country that was already on its knees.

>But I
>guess you will blame us
>for allowing them into power
>too, instead of the fickleness
>and easy going appeasement of
>western European countries, most notably
>Britain and France.

So the US was taking decisive steps to stop Hitler's rise? And was clearly an anti-Fascist and non-anti-semite country? Please.

>>Making money for
>>Bill Gates?
>
>Ha. Actually Gates doesn't even
>have the grip on the
>economy as everyone thinks.
>In actual dollars he might
>be the richest man ever,
>but in comparison to the
>economy, he doesn't have the
>riches that the Rockefellers, Carnegie,
>and others had. Not
>to mention most of his
>money is invested in shares
>of Microsoft, which is being
>broke up. So therefore
>we are not making money
>for him. Considering he
>broke out into a new
>industry, he's made new money.
> We aren't making money
>for him.

That was a joke.


>>Bringing me an
>>amazing amount of pointless material
>>goods?
>
>If the goods are pointless then
>why are you buying them?
> That doesn't make sense.

I don't mean just me (although I have bought my fair share of pointless goods). Actually, that's a good question. Look around you. Tell me that the vast majority of things that are on sale aren't pointless. I don't know why people by them. It might have something to do with the constant creation of desire fueled by advertisement, government incitement and ever-increasing production.

> Providing millions of people
>>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?
>
>Like what? Tell me what
>jobs are there now that
>didn't exist back in history
>that didn't demean people?
>Sweatshops? I guess working
>in cotton, tobacco, rice, and
>other fields with manual tools
>are not considered demeaning and
>at times inhumane. I
>guess working in the tech
>world making a high 5-6
>figure salary is considered uninteresting.
> I guess the fact
>that more people than ever
>have control over their futures
>and a chance to fight
>a vitural caste system than
>ever in order to make
>something of themselves is considered
>uninspiring.

Working in a field and selling or eating what you grow is great. Working in a field for a pittance in miserable conditions is demeaning. Have you ever worked on a chain-line? Doing the same movements over and over for years? That is demeaning.
I worked in a super-market for a month, stacking shelves. That is demeaning, and infuriating (to me, at least). And add to that the fact that the super-market system is exploitative of both producers and consumers, while destroying competition...
Read my reply to k. orr to see what I think about jobs.

>In other words, there is alot
>that needs to be done
>in this world, but that
>doesn't mean you have to
>dismiss the advances and the
>contributions that we have made.

I'm using one right now.

>Just because there is a society
>doesn't mean you're codependent on
>each other.

Actually, it does. Division of labour means the tailors, carpenters, farmers, secretaries and mayors are co-dependent.

>Nor do
>you have the right to
>tell someone how to live.

But to a certain extent you have to. In fact, you do it yourself. Your ideal is: if you're not knowledgeable, you have no say about any laws, etc. Denying rights is one means of determining how people live.

>That's not the point. Just
>because we have things in
>common doesn't mean we don't
>disagree on certain things either.
> The point was that
>we all have different experiences.
> And, even if two
>people have simular experiences that
>doesn't mean they are going
>to view experiences the same.
> You might see a
>glass as half-empty, but I
>might see it as half-full.

Actually, the real point is that you see only differences between people. I try to see both differences and commonalities, because your approach is what leads to racism, war, castes, etc.

>>Who just said that everyone is
>>an individual? Why are you
>>clumping everyone in one big
>>group?
>
>Read the sentence again. I
>asked why would you try
>to. I never said
>we should.

Read thr sentence again. I said you clumped everyone under a narrowly defined group labeled "individuals". My group is much more broadly defined and makes more sense.

>Since when does saying I don't
>care to put trust in
>everyone I see to make
>decisions on my welfare constitute
>as hate? Do/Can you
>trust everyone in your country
>to make correct decisions on
>your welfare?

You don't need to trust everyone to make decisions on your welfare. Only the person/group/body that has the power to make those decisions. Since that body should be answerable to the people, namely you, you should be able to contest/support/replace that p/g/b.
However, you do need to trust (to a certain degree) the people around you. You have no trust in anyone (or at least you don't think you do). If everyone were like you, society would disintegrate into small warring factions. It happens in many places around the globe (including the US, cf. gated communities).

>Not true,

What, men are not the product of their times? They are that, plus whatever personal thought and experiences they bring to it. Some bring more than others, that's why there is progress.

>because if that was
>the case then America's Founding
>Fathers would have made a
>government based on the existing
>governments of that time, which
>were monarchies. They developed
>new ideas and new principles
>by examining the mistakes of
>those governments and learning from
>them.

Which is what I stated above. They are the product of their times and brought their own thoughts and experiences, which had taught them that monarchy was not the way to go. But notice how many things showed how much in their times they were: women were by no means equal to men, and despite grand statements, all men were not treated equal.

>If they were
>products of their times, then
>territorial independence itself would not
>have come to pass because
>it hadn't happened before.

You're talking non-sense again. Are you saying that no territory had ever become independent from another in the history of man before the US? Do you know how many empires had risen and fallen before 1778/9 (I can't remember the exact date, please refresh my memory)?

>>>Laws are not flexible; they shouldn't be scrapped
>>>or overridden because of public opinion. Law >should be constant
>
>>More evidence of your people-hating. And
>>massive silliness to boot. If
>>the law were constant, Krewcial
>>(sorry Krew) would own the
>>both of us, and his
>>girl-friend wouldn't be able to
>>vote.
>
>But that wasn't because of public
>opinion that's because it was
>necessary for the future of
>the nation.

It was because of part of the public's opinion. Namely the oppressed part (women, Blacks...). See, democracy doesn't only mean that the majority's opinion is taken into account (especially as, as I said before, whether one is in the majority or minority varies from issue to issue. e.g. I am in an ethnic minority in France, yet I am in an economic majority (middle-class))

>In fact
>I believe that if it
>would have come down to
>a national democratic referendum on
>slavery in the United States
>in the early 1800's the
>abolitionists would lose.

Probably, luckily democracies don't *only* listen to the majority. Large enough groups focussed on a single issue can make a difference (Blacks in America, Greens in Europe, Reds in Imperial Russia, Blues in Atlantis...)

>Not to mention the principles of
>the law, aka the Constitution
>didn't change. Amendment 5
>of the Bill of Rights
>says that no person shall
>be deprived of life, liberty,
>or property without due
>process of law, therefore the
>slaveholders were in the wrong
>ALREADY, and were already contradicting
>the Constitution.

Did the makers of the Constitution think of Black people as equal men? I doubt it. Do people today consider starving Africans and exploited Asian female workers their equals? I doubt it.

>No. A dictatorship changes with
>the will of the dictator.
> There is no constant
>law; it changes when he
>wants to change it.

And your law never changes, no matter who wants it. Both are equally stupid.

>Well, it IS their government's responsibility
>to look out for the
>interests of their own people.
> It's not that I
>don't care, I think you
>should simply hold the right
>people responsible for the fate
>of others.

That's what I'm doing. Ever heard of "structural adjustment"? Of the WTO? Of ideological hegemony? The US and other countries play a great hand in deciding the fate of other, weaker, countries. There isn't all that much the countries can do about it, except play the game by rules they didn't establish. Once they get used to that, the US doesn't have to do much, as the country's "leaders" are eager to take over the means of their own exploitation. It's called "structural power" (Steven Lukes "On power", it's a small book).

>Laws can't
>enforce themselves.

Especially if other countries or bodies (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU...) decide your laws and actions for you, and you have no recourse against them.

>Wrong. I never said they
>shouldn't have a voice.
>I simply said that laws
>should not be based simply
>on a majority's wishes.

They're not. In a democracy, laws reflect all of society, as minorities will strive to obtain changes in issues where they are disadvantaged.

>That doesn't mean they don't
>have the right to voice
>their concerns like I do.
> That's why I added
>the conjunction "as well as
>the majority".

What's the point if the people (in your system) are ignored in favour of the opinions of the "experts"?

>Foreign aid is charity.

See my response to k. orr. It's no charity.

>Wealth
>redistribution is charity.

The point of wealth redistribution is that the people you help will be able to produce more wealth down the line (through having access to better living conditions, better education...). Current systems might not do that (it's a complex thing to do right), but I don't see it as charity, rather an investment.

>I do
>believe, however, that money in
>a certain district should be
>used inside that district first
>to ease the needs of
>the public, before it is
>used in other districts.

So you are arguing for poor areas to remain poor and rich areas to remain rich.

>The point is who are you
>to make decisions for another
>adult? That's the question.

According to you, the "experts" should make decisions for all of us "uninformed" masses.

>The point of that was to
>say that whatever government does,
>it does by force.

Well, the state does possess the monopoly of legitimate violence. But does it build a road by force? Does it fund schools by force? Did it force you to accept a college grant? It will, however, "force" you to jail if you burn anything public to the ground .

>There is no deciding whether
>you are going to abide
>by a law. If
>caught, you go to jail.
> Period.

Well, you have to be proven guilty first. And the legal system is a little more complex than that.

>Therefore, laws
>should not be based merely
>on the beliefs of the
>majority because their beliefs aren't
>everyone's beliefs.

So they should be based on what? The beliefs of the ruling minority? The beliefs of the Taliban? The beliefs of your priest? Or the beliefs the mass of people (or their representatives) can agree to compromise on?

>>If you have freedom of speech
>>and access to political power
>>(i.e. democracy), then you can
>>fight the masses. I think
>>that is within the bounds
>>of your own motto: "Get
>>off your lazy butt and
>>get to work". Failing that,
>>with all these cheap plane
>>tickets, you can just leave.
>
>How are you to do that
>if the laws are based
>on majority opinion?

The majority never stopped you from buying a plane ticket. And you get your opinions heard the same ways all minorities have gotten their opinions heard: either you kick up a ruckus, or you talk to a minister while smoking a cigar with him in the Parliament's rec room.

>No that is not it, nor
>is that realistic. The
>reason we pay taxes, or
>at least it should be,
>is to compensate for public
>services, such as fire, police,
>rescue, and utilities, as well
>as compensation of government officals
>and employees. Not for
>the numerous government programs in
>existence.

So all government programmes are bad? I notice education wasn't on your list. Would you prefer to be educated by Coca-Cola?

>Is that better than having an
>even more unimformed majority decide
>the fate of the nation,
>or possibly in the US's
>case, the world? That's
>ridiculous.

If you realised how little the "experts" knew about the state of the world and how international decisions are made, you would find that ridiculous too.

>>I like you, I really do,
>>it's just that I think
>>you're a lazy, stupid, uniformed,
>>irrational thief. But I gots
>>love for ya.
>
>Bingo.

Damn, if that's how you view other people, then you are very, very sad. It's thanks to people like you that ever-increasing parts of the world's population will starve to death and live in poverty (and not because they are stupid and can't control how many kids they have, although that sometimes plays a role).


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 02:49 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "RE: yes, I am replying to you"
In response to Reply # 36


  

          

>Actually, it does. Ever heard of
>"structural adjustment"? The WTO?

That's not force. Force is when you attempt to physically make someone do something they don't want to do. Countries have a choice whether or not to allow foreign companies within our borders.

>>Therefore it
>>wasn't a contradiction.
>
>Yes it was. Simply because the
>capitalist system is inherently expansionist
>(the need to capture new
>markets). Which means forcing to
>varying degrees other countries (markets)
>to accept your ways.

Government is force. Businesses can't force you to do anything you don't want to do. Maybe they might persuade you, but persuasion is not force.

>Like k. orr, this statement shows
>utter ignorance of the world.
>I believe it was the
>Monroe Act (can't remember date,
>1850's maybe) in which the
>US virtually laid claim to
>South America. The US today
>runs an empire (along with
>it's European and Japanese dukes)
>far more efficient than anything
>ever seen previously. No hopes
>of world domination? Just because
>there hasn't been territorial expansion
>for a long time, doesn't
>mean there isn't expansion.

Do we hold soverignty in South America? No. Like I said before, international businesses get away with things because of the weak foreign governments in those respective countries. Blame them, not the US.

>I mean both. Public and private
>are not two discrete spheres.
>They work together at all
>levels, from international law-making (ever
>heard of the Multi-lateral Agreement
>on Investment?) on down.

They might conjoin at different times but they are very discreet. To think the size of one or the other won't have a considerable effect on the nation is naive. To think you can put the two in the same genre is unrealistic also. There are things the private sector can do that governemt can't, and vice versa. Especially when you put international issues in perspective.

>You're the one who says that
>masses should be ignored, now
>I'm the one who's telling
>people they have no power?
>I want to bring power
>to the people, you have
>no coherent plan other than
>"let me live my life".
>Try a bit of honesty.

That isn't power to the people, that's power to the majority. You can't say the people because the people collectively will never unaminously agree on issues. Therefore, the public has a voice, but influence wise a collective group should not have power over others' private lives.

>> Is this "no voice"
>>idea different in other countries?
>
>This is a "most succesful" debate.
>No-one said it's not happening
>anywhere else.

What you're trying to do is blame negatives solely on the US, therefore it is necessary to see if it is just happening in the US or happening everywhere. It's also necessary to see if it is just happening now, or was it a trait of the past. You can't just point a finger and say "this is all your fault!" without taking the other points in retrospect also.

>> If there was another
>>government, would it differ?
>
>As in a different president or
>a different type of government?

Different type.
>>Really now? I guess we
>>started both World Wars, and
>>was the aggressor of the
>>Cuban Missle Crisis, which almost
>>started WW III.

>I speak of the Cold War.
>Remember that? 40-odd years of
>nuclear arms race? Of proxy
>wars (Korea, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan...)? Of
>financed dictatorships (Mobutu in Zaire
>to name one)? And some
>people call that period "The
>Long Peace"...

Oh, I guess the Cold War was started by us and not by communist aggression and isolationism. Sure.

>Einstein deeply regretted that his discoveries
>had led to the creation
>of nuclear weapons. I think
>he even said he would
>rather not of made them.

If Einstein didn't, someone else would! It was something that was inevitable. I don't like nuclear weapons either, but if the US isn't the front runner of weapons technology, then someone will be, and might not be as cautious in using them.

>Plus, you act like the US
>is the good guy. Why?
>Because US hegemony has made
>you (and I) rich and
>comfortable. Unfortunately, for 80% of
>the world's population that is
>not the case. And as
>I said before, our wealth
>is directly linked to their
>poverty.

I thought you just said less than half? Did poverty simply appear with the birth of the United States? You're even going to make the argument that during these times there isn't less poverty than back in the other time periods in world history? Everyone lived prosperous?

>>If the US
>>hadn't developed nuclear weapons first,
>>then this world could/would have
>>been in control of the
>>3rd Reich.
>
>Nuclear weapons had no role in
>deciding the outcome of WWII.
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes
>committed to test the efficiency
>of new weapons against a
>country that was already on
>its knees.

Maybe not the outcome, but defintely the number of casualities. It was either the a bomb or invade Japan, which would have doubled American causalties. Some historians and analysts say as many as $6 million, not to mention a year or so longer in the war. What was done was absolutely necessary, and if I was given that decision, I would have pressed the button myself. People had families that served and/or died in that war.

>So the US was taking decisive
>steps to stop Hitler's rise?
>And was clearly an anti-Fascist
>and non-anti-semite country? Please.

It wasn't the US's place, it was the so-called League of Nations's place to do so, and took responsibility for Germany's punishment and control, or lack thereof.

>>>Bringing me an
>>>amazing amount of pointless material
>>>goods?
>>
>>If the goods are pointless then
>>why are you buying them?
>> That doesn't make sense.
>
>I don't mean just me (although
>I have bought my fair
>share of pointless goods). Actually,
>that's a good question. Look
>around you. Tell me that
>the vast majority of things
>that are on sale aren't
>pointless. I don't know why
>people by them. It might
>have something to do with
>the constant creation of desire
>fueled by advertisement, government incitement
>and ever-increasing production.

It's simple: what seems pointless to you is not pointless to others. What you may see as pointless they may see as an asset. Therefore, they buy what they desire.

>> Providing millions of people
>>>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?
>>
>>Like what? Tell me what
>>jobs are there now that
>>didn't exist back in history
>>that didn't demean people?
>>Sweatshops? I guess working
>>in cotton, tobacco, rice, and
>>other fields with manual tools
>>are not considered demeaning and
>>at times inhumane. I
>>guess working in the tech
>>world making a high 5-6
>>figure salary is considered uninteresting.
>> I guess the fact
>>that more people than ever
>>have control over their futures
>>and a chance to fight
>>a vitural caste system than
>>ever in order to make
>>something of themselves is considered
>>uninspiring.

>Working in a field and selling
>or eating what you grow
>is great. Working in a
>field for a pittance in
>miserable conditions is demeaning.

Once again, that is your opinion. Some people willingly work in miserable conditions because they know the output can be favorable. Does that qualify as demeaning? Not to them. They are doing what they have to do to get ahead. Everything is not easy, nor should it be.

Have
>you ever worked on a
>chain-line? Doing the same movements
>over and over for years?
>That is demeaning.

I've worked at a factory where I did the same job over and over. However I liked it, and was proud of it because of I felt I was the hardest worker there. I'd put in 70-80 hrs a week, and I'd get a nice paycheck the next week. Once again, what is considered demeaning to you, is not necessarily demeaning to others.

>I worked in a super-market for
>a month, stacking shelves. That
>is demeaning, and infuriating (to
>me, at least). And add
>to that the fact that
>the super-market system is exploitative
>of both producers and consumers,
>while destroying competition...
>Read my reply to k. orr
>to see what I think
>about jobs.

Geez. If you can't stand stacking boxes and food I wonder how you'd feel working in 100+ degree heat mowing yards, cutting down trees, mending fences, and trimming bushes. That's what I did this summer (and will do again this weekend). Not because I had to, but because I was helping my cousin out with his business to catch up on tasks that needed to be done. I used to stack 50 llb boxes of cucumbers onto crates and packed them in big rigs.
I didn't consider any of that demeaning. Even if I did, it's irrrelevant. It has to be done by somebody, whether you're stacking groceries or in the field or whatever. Therefore, get used to it. Not everyone can live a luxurious life. Some people are going to go without, and some people will have "hard" jobs. That's the way life goes. You have to decide which side of the fence you want to be on: the work harder side, or the work smarter side.
An you know what, there is nowhere else in the world that I, alot of citizens, and alot of the immigrants that come to the United States, would rather work. After all, why you think they come here? Because they know this is well the opportunity lies.

>>Just because there is a society
>>doesn't mean you're codependent on
>>each other.
>
>Actually, it does. Division of labour
>means the tailors, carpenters, farmers,
>secretaries and mayors are co-dependent.

Conducting a service in exchange for money or another service is not dependency.

>>Nor do
>>you have the right to
>>tell someone how to live.

>But to a certain extent you
>have to. In fact, you
>do it yourself. Your ideal
>is: if you're not knowledgeable,
>you have no say about
>any laws, etc. Denying rights
>is one means of determining
>how people live.

That's not a right. You have no right to tell other people how to live their lives. It doesn't matter if you're knowledgable or not, you still don't have the life experiences necessary to tell me what to do with my private life. If it's an issue that effects someone else directly, that's different, but even then that shouldn't be decided by majority opinion.

>Actually, the real point is that
>you see only differences between
>people. I try to see
>both differences and commonalities, because
>your approach is what leads
>to racism, war, castes, etc.

Well that's better than to be naive and think everyone is going to look out for your best interests, or even that they have enough knowledge to.
Racism, war, castes, etc are lead by ideals of superiority. I never said that I was superior to anyone, you only assumed that. On the contratry, when a person or group of people think they should be given authority over your life, that's authoritarian, and what leads to those things. I also never said that people can't live together despite differences. I simply said they don't have a right to invade in my life. People can't get along without someone having superiority over them?

>Read thr sentence again. I said
>you clumped everyone under a
>narrowly defined group labeled "individuals".
>My group is much more
>broadly defined and makes more
>sense.

If I had did that, then that would have been an oxymoron, in which I surely didn't do. The problem is that you think too collectively. You can't simply put individuals as a group of people, or they aren't considered individuals in reference to that group. When I say individuals, I mean one person, with one voice, and one mind in contrast with another person, with another voice and another mind. Not as a collective group.

>You don't need to trust everyone
>to make decisions on your
>welfare. Only the person/group/body that
>has the power to make
>those decisions. Since that body
>should be answerable to the
>people, namely you, you should
>be able to contest/support/replace that
>p/g/b.

But I thought you were in favor of direct democracy, and not just representation? That's what you just described.

>However, you do need to trust
>(to a certain degree) the
>people around you. You have
>no trust in anyone (or
>at least you don't think
>you do). If everyone were
>like you, society would disintegrate
>into small warring factions. It
>happens in many places around
>the globe (including the US,
>cf. gated communities).

There's a difference in trust and cooperation. Just because I may do business with a person does not mean I trust him to do simply anything, which includes making proper decisions for me in my intersts.

>>Not true,
>
>What, men are not the product
>of their times? They are
>that, plus whatever personal thought
>and experiences they bring to
>it. Some bring more than
>others, that's why there is
>progress.

Not necessarily. They can be exactly the opposite of their environment and times, and against the wishes of other people. They can be antisocial, isolationist, and want to have nothing to do with the outside world. Therefore, just because they are from that environment doesn't mean they are going to necessarily act like the environment they are from/in.

>Which is what I stated above.
>They are the product of
>their times and brought their
>own thoughts and experiences, which
>had taught them that monarchy
>was not the way to
>go. But notice how many
>things showed how much in
>their times they were: women
>were by no means equal
>to men, and despite grand
>statements, all men were not
>treated equal.

Semantics. That's not a product. A product is when you have two things that come together in a specific fashion. In order for them to be products they would have to be like everyone else, or even the majority of the people in their environment. I think it is safe to say that these men were each one of a kind.

>You're talking non-sense again. Are you
>saying that no territory had
>ever become independent from another
>in the history of man
>before the US? Do you
>know how many empires had
>risen and fallen before 1778/9
>(I can't remember the exact
>date, please refresh my memory)?

Not a territory that declared independence from it's own ruling country, no. When you find one, then show me.

>It was because of part of
>the public's opinion. Namely the
>oppressed part (women, Blacks...). See,
>democracy doesn't only mean that
>the majority's opinion is taken
>into account

You're playing with words again. Democracy represents public opinion, or majority rule. Therefore are you talking about democracy as the word means or are you actually talking about democracy as you want it to mean? And for future purposes can't you distinguish between the two?

Because if you are heeding the wishes of the minority also then that isn't full democracy. If anything you are agreeing with me that minority interests should be heard and protected. So if you are agreeing with me that direct democracy cannot be obtainable because minority interests must be protected, then simply say so. Until then, you're only playing semantics.

>Did the makers of the Constitution
>think of Black people as
>equal men? I doubt it.

It doesn't matter what they thought, only what they wrote as law. The letter of the law is what is to be interpreted, not the spirit. Sure they might have owned slaves, but that went against the principles they wrote.

>Do people today consider starving
>Africans and exploited Asian female
>workers their equals? I doubt
>it.

Probably not. You're right. However, the law treats them as equals.

>>Laws can't
>>enforce themselves.
>
>Especially if other countries or bodies
>(WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU...)
>decide your laws and actions
>for you, and you have
>no recourse against them.

You're right. I don't believe in world soverignty. As I've said plenty of times.

>>Foreign aid is charity.

>See my response to k. orr.
>It's no charity.

It is too charity, whether it actually goes to the foreign land or it goes into someone else's pocket. It's all charity. Even if 2 dollars goes to them, that 2 dollars is still charity.

>>Wealth
>>redistribution is charity.

>The point of wealth redistribution is
>that the people you help
>will be able to produce
>more wealth down the line
>(through having access to better
>living conditions, better education...). Current
>systems might not do that
>(it's a complex thing to
>do right), but I don't
>see it as charity, rather
>an investment.

It's a very poor investment then. I don't know of any wealth redistribution scheme that ever helped out the nation as a whole. Not to mention it still is charity by force, which means you're taking away someone else's freedom of possession.

>>I do
>>believe, however, that money in
>>a certain district should be
>>used inside that district first
>>to ease the needs of
>>the public, before it is
>>used in other districts.
>
>So you are arguing for poor
>areas to remain poor and
>rich areas to remain rich.

I'm arguing that you should sweep around your own front door before you attempt to sweep around someone elses.

>>The point is who are you
>>to make decisions for another
>>adult? That's the question.
>
>According to you, the "experts" should
>make decisions for all of
>us "uninformed" masses.

If you are referring to representatives, then yes. If you are talking about authoritarian government, then no.

>>The point of that was to
>>say that whatever government does,
>>it does by force.
>
>Well, the state does possess the
>monopoly of legitimate violence. But
>does it build a road
>by force? Does it fund
>schools by force? Did it
>force you to accept a
>college grant? It will, however,
>"force" you to jail if
>you burn anything public to
>the ground .

All those you mention are to serve the public and it's best interests. Those are things we all use everyday, therefore it is considered a "debt", not forceable charity.

>>Therefore, laws
>>should not be based merely
>>on the beliefs of the
>>majority because their beliefs aren't
>>everyone's beliefs.
>
>So they should be based on
>what? The beliefs of the
>ruling minority? The beliefs of
>the Taliban? The beliefs of
>your priest? Or the beliefs
>the mass of people (or
>their representatives) can agree to
>compromise on?

I've already told you this a million times...BASED ON THE WRITTEN LAW AND PRINCIPLES.

>>No that is not it, nor
>>is that realistic. The
>>reason we pay taxes, or
>>at least it should be,
>>is to compensate for public
>>services, such as fire, police,
>>rescue, and utilities, as well
>>as compensation of government officals
>>and employees. Not for
>>the numerous government programs in
>>existence.

>So all government programmes are bad?
>I notice education wasn't on
>your list. Would you prefer
>to be educated by Coca-Cola?

No, not all programs are bad, and some actually are effective. However, at least in the US, and I'm sure in most countries, the majority of them are, and they should be scrapped in order to reduce the size of governmental influence.

>>Is that better than having an
>>even more unimformed majority decide
>>the fate of the nation,
>>or possibly in the US's
>>case, the world? That's
>>ridiculous.

>If you realised how little the
>"experts" knew about the state
>of the world and how
>international decisions are made, you
>would find that ridiculous too.

I still would put my trust in people that study topics than people who havent. Call me anti-social if you want, but I do tend to care about experience and knowledge. That's how it goes.

>Damn, if that's how you view
>other people, then you are
>very, very sad. It's thanks
>to people like you that
>ever-increasing parts of the world's
>population will starve to death
>and live in poverty (and
>not because they are stupid
>and can't control how many
>kids they have, although that
>sometimes plays a role).

People have been starving to death since the world has been created, and people will continue to starve. You aren't Superman, where you can simply save everyone from poverty. And yes, that is what I think about people. Some people are lazy, some people are uninformed, and some people do not have my best interests in mind. That's reality. They can change, but it's doubtful. And notice I did not say all people. There are some that I share the same frame of mind with. But even then, that alone should not give them an authorian right to direct my life.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

TinkyWinky
Charter member
2726 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 05:49 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "internet conservatives are funny, n/m"
In response to Reply # 0


          

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

i held out, but i finally put an IM in my sig. me and steve talking isht about biz markie:
Gigfog: He scares me alot
Gigfog: he's like king kong
Xkrh1X: LOL
Xkrh1X: you're fucked up
Gigfog: I saw him at the hotel with a biz markie sweater on LOL
Gigfog: I was like "why wear a sweater with your name on it?"
Xkrh1X: in case he forgets
Xkrh1X: lol
Gigfog: HAHAHAHa
Gigfog: just in case he gets lost..the police can contact his owner
Xkrh1X: yeah, you didn't see, but it has his address and a contact number on the back
Gigfog: hAHAHA
Xkrh1X: "if found, please call..."
Gigfog: and his proof of rabies vaccination?
Xkrh1X: LOL
Gigfog: man I am mean
Gigfog: LOL
Xkrh1X: yeah, you also may have just made my signature
Xkrh1X: lol

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Tue Aug-29-00 09:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "finally a good post! n/m"
In response to Reply # 27


          

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Binlahab
Charter member
182925 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 02:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "yaddayaddayadda"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

1) these are some of the longest most pointless posts i have ever had the misfortune of seeing...if ya'll would STOP trying to be cute and witty and concentrate on the content instead of the delivery...ya'll MIGHT get somewhere

2) I find it highly telling that neither Janey nor Boodah has deigned to respond to any of this

3) is the point to show the world, Expertise, that you are conservative? point taken, sir.

now, being the typical loud mouth...my opinion must be heard...

I also am a republican...fiscally conservative, socially liberal...I think with all the intelligence in this country, we should all be able to get paid and be inclusive about it...now, i dont blame the rich for the problems of the world, it might be their fault, but it is NOT their responsibility...

"Black folks have to work twice as hard to get half as much, which means they gotta work 4 times as hard to get twice as much." -- my Big Mama

you allready know how it is, so why complain about it? go DO it, go make it...if you want to share the wealth that others have, go get it, and accept the consequnces of your actions...does this mean you might have to shit on some people...yeah. maybe cheat some people? yeah. Lie? steal? all possibilities, but if thats what you want, then its there (or should I say here) to get...I'm sorry, but anyone who isn't on the road to being a millionaire in this country, is not trying hard enough....

now, i made these remarks in the interest of learning, and thats what I expect to do...I dont need anyones little smarmy elitist attitudes or whatever...the key here is discourse not bullshit, so if you have a point to make, or disagree with what I've said, cool, reply. but if you only want to practice your teaspoon sharp wit....take that garbage to General....


on sabbatical.

does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 04:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "RE: yaddayaddayadda"
In response to Reply # 40


          

>1) these are some of the
>longest most pointless posts i
>have ever had the misfortune
>of seeing...

You're right. We've been talking about the same things for weeks now. Damn, I had to scroll 10 times to get to the end of some posts.

>2) I find it highly telling
>that neither Janey nor Boodah
>has deigned to respond to
>any of this

Yeah, I feel our conversation is inferior too. I was only doing this in the hope of being validated by them.

>I also am a republican...fiscally conservative,
>socially liberal

How do the two go together?

>...I think with all
>the intelligence in this country,
>we should all be able
>to get paid and be
>inclusive about it...

Wealth and happiness for all? Sorry, that's not what capitalism is about.

>now, i dont
>blame the rich for the
>problems of the world, it
>might be their fault, but
>it is NOT their responsibility...

How can something be your fault, but not your responsibility? "Yes, I am directly responsible for starting that war in (far-off country), but I accept no responsibility for it." Huh?

>"Black folks have to work twice
>as hard to get half
>as much, which means they
>gotta work 4 times as
>hard to get twice as
>much." -- my Big Mama

At the risk of sounding like an ass-hole, if you work twice as hard to get half as much, then you have to work 4 times as hard to get the same amount, and 8 times as hard to get twice as much.

>you allready know how it is,
>so why complain about it?
>go DO it, go make
>it...if you want to share
>the wealth that others have,
>go get it, and accept
>the consequnces of your actions...does
>this mean you might have
>to shit on some people...yeah.
>maybe cheat some people? yeah.
>Lie? steal? all possibilities, but
>if thats what you want,
>then its there (or should
>I say here) to get...

This whole tirade is an apology for a system which has caused environmental destruction, cultural destruction (as in the homogenisation of the world's cultures), economic exploitation and increased inequalities. If that's what you want...

>I'm
>sorry, but anyone who isn't
>on the road to being
>a millionaire in this country,
>is not trying hard enough....

This is silly.
A. Why would everyone want to be a millionaire?
B. What percentage of the US population are millionaires? If it were 1% (which I doubt), it would mean that 99% of the US's population are slackers. Does that seem credible to you?

>now, i made these remarks in
>the interest of learning, and
>thats what I expect to
>do...I dont need anyones little
>smarmy elitist attitudes or whatever...

Hey, I got called an ignorant uppity euro snob on another board today, so I'm probably an elitist too.

"teaspoon sharp wit", damn, that's funny :-D!

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
TinkyWinky
Charter member
2726 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 07:01 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "glad to see this...."
In response to Reply # 40


          

well, sorta. i'm glad to see someone standing up and elucidating the fruitlessness and futility of the present discourse. but this bothers me:

I'm
>sorry, but anyone who isn't
>on the road to being
>a millionaire in this country,
>is not trying hard enough....

now, what if my sole desire in life is to write? magazine articles, commentary, novels, poetry, whatever. what if i'm not in it for the money? i'm not trying hard enough? you think every olympic athlete is on the road to becoming a millionaire? they don't ALL get endorsements. when was the last time you saw a speewalker in a nike ad? so they're not trying hard enough? c'mon now, money's not everything, most people on these boards figured that out a long time ago.

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

i held out, but i finally put an IM in my sig. me and steve talking isht about biz markie:
Gigfog: He scares me alot
Gigfog: he's like king kong
Xkrh1X: LOL
Xkrh1X: you're fucked up
Gigfog: I saw him at the hotel with a biz markie sweater on LOL
Gigfog: I was like "why wear a sweater with your name on it?"
Xkrh1X: in case he forgets
Xkrh1X: lol
Gigfog: HAHAHAHa
Gigfog: just in case he gets lost..the police can contact his owner
Xkrh1X: yeah, you didn't see, but it has his address and a contact number on the back
Gigfog: hAHAHA
Xkrh1X: "if found, please call..."
Gigfog: and his proof of rabies vaccination?
Xkrh1X: LOL
Gigfog: man I am mean
Gigfog: LOL
Xkrh1X: yeah, you also may have just made my signature
Xkrh1X: lol

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Binlahab
Charter member
182925 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 07:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "true"
In response to Reply # 46


  

          

i misspoke...if you have dedicated yourself to some other goal other than the blind pursuit of cash, then more power to you...imo, in america money=power...power to do what you want when you want...I myself desire both....my skin color will make it harder for me to achieve either, but knowing this....I work harder....

on sabbatical.

does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-30-00 04:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "Calling it a day"
In response to Reply # 0


          

After reading your last post, I just got discouraged.

This debate has not advanced one iota since you arrived on this board. Rather than continually give each other the same pointless answers (I don't get the impression you're listening to me and acknowledging what I say, so you probably think the same of me), I'm proposing to let this stale issue die. We'll cross swords later, and hopefully on a different topic. Like "Playstation 2 vs. Dreamcast".

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22010 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com